Unless we weren't after the oil....

Post #69,837 by Simon_Jester 12/19/02 8:00:33 AM 12/19/02 8:03:23 AM Reply	Unless we weren't after the oil.... I've often thought we were after the Bull Supergun. We got that, btw. Edited by Simon_Jester Dec. 19, 2002, 08:03:23 AM EST Expand All History
Post #69,856 by Mike 12/19/02 9:03:25 AM Reply	So.....the gulf war wasn't about "freeing" Kuwait. wasn't about oil. .....it was about weapons! I think the strategic importance of oil deserves to be in the mix somewhere...but I'll run with your suggestion for a moment. If we were sufficiently concerned to go to war over his weapons back THEN... seems his weapons TODAY might provide a similar concern. Yes? -Mike -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,869 by Simon_Jester 12/19/02 9:50:46 AM Reply	Chuckle...sure except, back then, we claimed it was because Saddam agressively invaded Kuwait. It had nothing to do with weapons back been. So, if you notice the pattern, what we say (to the public) it's going to be about is unlikely to be what the war is really going to be about. :-)
Post #69,880 by bepatient 12/19/02 10:25:32 AM Reply	Hmmm... ...so confused...\r\n\r\nKeep getting told its all about the oil....\r\n\r\nnow its not all about the oil...\r\n\r\nreboot. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} \r\n[link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #69,906 by mmoffitt 12/19/02 11:36:43 AM Reply	Okay, Beep. You tell me. Why do we need to attack Iraq?
Post #69,949 by bepatient 12/19/02 1:52:38 PM Reply	Well I've been told... ...its all about the oil. Why should I ever question such popular wisdom? Never mind the minor little details of years of ignoring UN mandates, persuing and obtaining biological and chemical agents for weapons use, flaunting the UN again by omitting things that inspectors already knew were there...etc... And as for oil...do we want it expensive so all the fat texas cats will be happy...or do we want it cheap so the economy goes boom? Never really heard anything but "its about oil"..some saying we want cheap...others saying we want expensive...its just all so confusing.... Personally...I don't think we need to attack Iraq at all...I'd like to see us drill and exploit ANWR and Green River, strike a deal with the Russians to help them tap their own reserves (for a vig) and walk away from the middle east all together. Just so you don't think me anti-conservation...I also support raising the price of gas (through taxes) to about $4 a gallon...and using those taxes to build and support a public transportation system. While this is a somewhat different view than my traditional (get the f* outta my way) Libby underpinnings...I do feel that one key responsibility of government is to provide affordable transportation and mobility to its people...and having lived in Europe and seen what high gas prices can do as a behavior modifier and supplement to public transport...well lets just say that I support that endeavor. As for the Arab world...they don't like us???...well f'em if they can't take a joke. Simple really. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson}* [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,028 by a6l6e6x 12/19/02 8:14:12 PM 12/19/02 8:15:37 PM Reply	I like your solution to the energy (oil) problem. But I would use some of the gasoline tax money for treating pollution related health problems. The oil industry is getting a free ride in that area. Pay for the consequences, I say. Ashton will be pleased about the side effect on UAVs (that's Urban Assault Vehicles for newcomers). Alex "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."\t-- Mark Twain Edited by a6l6e6x Dec. 19, 2002, 08:15:37 PM EST Expand All History
Post #70,045 by bepatient 12/19/02 9:27:19 PM Reply	Mea Culpa syndrome... ...you say the industry gets a free ride...which I think is kind of ironic in that most of the serious ailments are auto emission related. The oil companies go get it...we burn it and then expect them to pay because its bad for us? Not quite with you there. The side effect on UAV's are drastic. I can't remember ever seeing one in Europe outside of military vehicles. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,052 by a6l6e6x 12/19/02 9:58:26 PM Reply	The free ride comes from the larger sales they enjoy. The consumption of oil/gasoline would be considerably reduced if it was properly taxed. And there is also the possibility of competition from alternative energy sources that might be taxed (if at all) differently. But you are right, ultimately it is we the consumers that pay. The problem is that, at present, we do not pay in proportion to the harm we cause. Alex "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."\t-- Mark Twain
Post #70,056 by bepatient 12/19/02 10:18:20 PM Reply	Thats it all over The problem is that, at present, we do not pay in proportion to the harm we cause. That may be one of the most sensible things I've seen posted in a while. The problem that I have is that, instead of us recognizing this..we spend all of our time blaming the businesses that give us the fix... And when we talk about the failed "war on drugs"...we say it can never be successful because where there is demand there will always be supply...so attacking supply is destined to fail...yet here it seems to be the easy solution...blame the corp...make them pay. We...the people...are the #1 polluters. Corporations get the press...and the movie coverage...but we are vastly more dangerous to ourselves than those "greedy corporate bastards". But what do I know...I'm in bed with big bizness---dontcha know ;-) Right Ash? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,072 by Ashton 12/20/02 12:49:30 AM Reply	Wow, Beep - in non-Market mode, eh? I mean - here's a whole thread in which you aren't just poseuring as the Corp/Devils advocate! Ackshully - I can't think of much to argue about in this thread :-) [Admin: Move thread to Sane Forum, please] I think I'll reserve my area of disagreement to the same old one, and for another venue. Will agree that 'blaming the Corp for providing what We were conditioned to Want' is as lame as you say. Pogo Lives: we have met the enemy and - Another time: Obv my perennial rant concerns the naive laissez faire of the most basic and expected kinds of scams ever perpetrated by the terminally greedy - demanding accountability and appropriate enforced punishment of offenders. (Corporate? throw in AMA too, re nonaccountability, non-protection from repeat butchers in the club) The 'accountability' can never occur until there is reform of the basic rules, er Charter: removing the clause bestowing 'Individual Citizenship' upon a complex collection of devious homo-saps (like the rest of us). "Free Speech via bribing congressfolk" indeed.. So along with Corp Charter revision must come campaign reform, the taking-back of the citizens' airwaves to the extent that: those who profit massively from these: release at low cost, suitable [=debated] air time as befits our paranoid style of political blab. Take the bribery $$ out of the Speech-dope selling. Both of these are Political / Governmental problems: should Corporate be blamed for behaving as outrageously as they can almost-legally get away with? Legally perhaps No. Actually: Yes, of course. Nasty manipulation is still nasty manipulation. (Let's not do Fred Rodell's immortal description of 'the law' right here, too. Either.) Somewhere in the New practical rules must also lie some disincentives to pay anyone 1000x the wage of the new-hire, obviously - presumably via Tax Rules, a part of the other reforms -- you know, like pre-Ronnie days? We can do the .. How does Corporate suck? It sucks beyond the ends of being and ideal grace .. to the depth and breadth and height A CIEIO can manipulate .. another time. Cheers, I. er.. watch that Slippery rung, just after the key to the exec john :-\ufffd When the rich assemble to concern themselves with the business of the poor, it is called Charity. When the poor assemble to concern themselves with the business of the rich, it is called Anarchy. -Paul Richards
Post #70,083 by bepatient 12/20/02 9:51:47 AM Reply	Damn...that was close ;-) I almost was forced to agree with you 100%. :-) It needs to be an exersize of >freedom< that changes this system. IMO, it is up to "we the people" to take back what is rightfully ours. I do not blame the CIEIO for acting in the best interest of his/her constituents. (congresscritter, however...there is another story...because by allowing CIEIO to influence...he is generally >not< acting in the best interest of his/hers) If we deem CEO pay unacceptable, ensure that it is lowered by acting upon it. Same with Hollywood. Same with Sports. Won't ever be able to fix CEO pay with ARod making 120 gazillion and a share of the team. Won't have it when you pay Denzel and John T 20+ million a film. I personally don't have any problem with high pay...as long as it has a basis in value (something that was severely lacking in the dot-bomb era). Jack Welch, on the other hand, turned GE from light bulb failure to manufacturing powerhouse...in the end...to the stockholders..he was probably worth every penny. I >really< don't like it when you decide what your own pay scale should be (Congress)...pay raises to Congress should be >voted< into place. Taking away the ability to get stinky rich is to tarnish the American Dream (tm). You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Still trying to aquire that key ;-p
Post #70,062 by Silverlock 12/19/02 10:48:32 PM Reply	2 problems Strongest first; ..expect them to pay.. How do you interpret taking some of the TAX money collected and distributing it to health concerns, or any other concern for that matter, as making the oil companies pay dime one? And then; The oil companies go get it...we burn it" Naivete isn't a good color for you Beep. Oil/auto is the reason this country doesn't have effective mass transit. Simply, there is more short-term profit in keeping cars on the road than there is in supplying the needs of trains/buses/trolleys, etc. The demand for gas is not just a consumer driven phenomenon. I hope you'll respond to both problems. The second is presented weakly, but I think I can defend it. Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage? -[link\|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107\|Molly Ivins]
Post #70,063 by bepatient 12/19/02 11:02:30 PM Reply	Re: 2 problems First issue. I don't. Taking money from corporations is just another sales tax. Net effect is a wash...and the consumer doesn't >recognize< the component of price. Besides...I thought I was pretty clear when I said I don't expect them to >have< to pay for something that >we< do. 2nd point. I thought I was also relatively clear here. Mass transit is a government responsibility. Oil/auto is a convenient cop-out for what I consider to be one of our government's most amazing failures. The demand for gas is almost entirely a consumer driven phenomenon...and while we all know its environmentally unsound..we fail to support initiatives that change the status quo. Quite simply..raising the tax on gasoline to those levels will achieve the desired outcome. Again...you can blame the drug user or the supplier...which one creates the demand? I pull the trigger...but its S&W's fault the guy is dead? Chances are slim to none that we are going to agree if your premise is to blame Ford for the failures of mass transit. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,098 by Silverlock 12/20/02 11:15:49 AM Reply	Okay First issue- We agree then that using tax revenues to pay for health problems caused by the taxed item does not equate to making the provider of the unhealthy, taxed item pay for them. Good. I agree BTW with taxing the hell out of gasoline. Get it up to 4 or 5 dollars a gallon. Second- I still think you are being a little naive. Consumer demand for oil is not a simple "buyer" driven demand. [link\|http://www.trainweb.org/mts/ctc/ctc06.html\|GM's] destruction of [link\|http://www.verdant.net/natlcity.htm\|trolley] lines is a case in point. Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage? -[link\|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107\|Molly Ivins]
Post #70,107 by bepatient 12/20/02 11:46:03 AM Reply	There is no naivite involved. I know the GM story. It should have never been allowed. Again...back to my premise...Mass Transit is a government reponsibility. GM can't form a consortium to buy the [link\|http://www.screamingeagle.org/\|101st Airborne], right? My point is that they've failed at this just as miserably as they have failed in so many other areas. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,110 by Silverlock 12/20/02 11:58:30 AM Reply	Let me restate My reference to mass transit being torpedoed by GM et al, was a illustration of a larger point. I am not trying to blame GM/Shell/Goodyear for the failures of mass transit. That is not the point I am pursuing. The consumer demand for oil has been manipulated by those who profit from that demand. The blame is shared. The dealer/user metaphor is not accurate. The consumer is not standing alone in this. Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage? -[link\|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107\|Molly Ivins]
Post #70,141 by bepatient 12/20/02 3:16:03 PM Reply	And we (the people) are the ones that allowed it. It was all legal. Granted it may have been "sneaky" or "underhanded"...but it was all legal. And again...making >them< pay does absolutely nothing except extend the amount of time that it takes for us to pay. Taxing corporations for something that they will immediately pass through on price is an irrelevance. Fool me once, shame on you...fool me for >years<....shame on me. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,146 by Silverlock 12/20/02 3:23:51 PM Reply	Yeah. Right. It was all legal. And you say you aren't naive. Why should we ask our military to die for cheap oil when the rest of us aren't even being asked to get better mileage? -[link\|http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=14107\|Molly Ivins]
Post #70,149 by bepatient 12/20/02 3:37:27 PM Reply	Well...let me clarify... ...because risk/reward is involved. They may have cracked a minor law or 2 in the process..but..even in 1930 standards...being levied a fine of $5000 makes the law irrelevent. Cheaper to pay the fine than to fix the problem. None of this discussion really even makes sense in the context of my point. None of that should have been possible. The simple fact that is >was< possible verifies the failure that I've pointed out. And..complicit or not...fining oil companies is no different than taxing us directly. >We< pay. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,152 by drewk 12/20/02 3:44:59 PM Reply	No, a specific subset of "we" pay And..complicit or not...fining oil companies is no different than taxing us directly. >We< pay. But "we" would pay in proportion to how much we use it. If you want (or need) to drive something that gets 12 mpg, and I can get by on something that gets 36 mpg, doesn't it seem fair that you should pay a three-times-larger share of the costs? Three times as much for the roads, three times as much for the health costs, three times as much for every cost involved in over-the-road transportation. I would think you would be in favor of costs being borne, to the extent possible, by those responsible for them. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #70,153 by bepatient 12/20/02 3:50:29 PM Reply	Whcih is why.. ...I say just tax the gas. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,159 by drewk 12/20/02 4:29:06 PM Reply	I ... thought that was the original idea But don't feel like re-reading the whole thread. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #70,160 by bepatient 12/20/02 4:48:41 PM Reply	Neither do I ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #70,085 by boxley 12/20/02 10:11:37 AM Reply	we have way too much mass for effective transit will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] You think that you can trust the government to look after your rights? ask an Indian
Post #70,100 by Brandioch 12/20/02 11:23:20 AM Reply	Wrong. But we have too much infrastructure built up without any thought given to mass transit. Our cities would have to be heavily rebuilt to accomodate the hubs and routes needed.
Post #70,140 by boxley 12/20/02 3:15:58 PM Reply	certainly we could all huddle in a mass at government controlled checkpoints or we could live in america. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] You think that you can trust the government to look after your rights? ask an Indian
Post #70,257 by mmoffitt 12/21/02 3:51:02 PM Reply	Re: Checkpoints. Hell, we're gonna do that already. Or don't you think the boys at the new ~~Gestapo~~ Homeland Security Office are thinking that up?
Post #70,119 by jb4 12/20/02 1:13:40 PM Reply	I'm sorry, I got distracted there for a second... Never mind the minor little details of years of ignoring UN mandates, persuing and obtaining biological and chemical agents for weapons use, flaunting the UN again by omitting things that inspectors already knew were there...etc... I'm afraid I'm lost...were you talking about North Korea? Pakistan? India? Oh, you were talking about Iraq. OK..I'm back on track....please continue.... jb4 "They lead. They don't manage. The carrot always wins over the stick. Ask your horse. You can lead your horse to water, but you can't manage him to drink." Richard Kerr, United Technologies Corporation, 1990
Post #70,143 by bepatient 12/20/02 3:18:05 PM Reply	Methinks you're still distracted. Otherwise your post might have had a shot at making sense ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #69,916 by Simon_Jester 12/19/02 11:49:50 AM Reply	Which war? I don't think I ever claimed that original Iraq War (Desert Storm/Desert Shield) was about oil. I might have claimed that we told Iraq to go ahead with the attack - but even then, how could that war be about oil? Weren't we getting large discounts on the price of oil at the time? Now, this time around....I'm just not sure yet. ;-)
Post #69,942 by Mike 12/19/02 1:21:29 PM Reply	No silly. The war is about the faked moon landings which were dreamt up to induce Russia to invade Afghanistan and generate a band of disillusioned hoodlums who would destroy the WTC so that we could get everyone fearful and justify an attack on Iraq which would provide an opportunity to destroy the Ethiopean space program which everyone knows was funding North Koreas initiative to spread buck teeth throughout the cast of the musical "Annie" in the hope that they would use their enormous incisors to chew a hole in the ozone layer....thereby causing global warming, the polar ice caps to melt and sea levels to rise causing a flood of the Netherlands and leave the Dutch no alternative but to colonise the entire middle east and then trade all their oil for Pepperidge Farm goldifsh. And...<cough>......whose bong is this? -- The truth is somewhere in between --
Post #69,950 by bepatient 12/19/02 1:54:53 PM Reply	cough...mine.... ...Oh...I get it...so your saying its all the Jew's fault ;-) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #69,965 by bbronson 12/19/02 3:02:48 PM Reply	How faked moon landings led to cheesy goldfish ;-) Sounds like a candidate for a future Connections episode! Brian Bronson
Post #69,970 by Mike 12/19/02 3:49:58 PM Reply	:-) -- The truth is somewhere in between --

Welcome to IWETHEY!