RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Unfolding Universe (discovery channel)

["(8?»" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

At 01:43 AM 6/6/2002 -0500, you wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jun 2002,
> "(8?»" wrote:
>
> > Iraq is no longer designated "America Friendly", once they
> decided to
> > nationalize their oil supply. The Saudi royals are just as
> dependent
> > on our protection, as we are for their oil. Although they are
> trying
> > to break free from this situation, in order to prevent another
> > "Iranian Revolution". (An entire population will not stay
> happily
> > repressed to support US oil profits.)
>
> No offense, but if you really think this is a fair assessment of
> anything
> as complicated as either contemporary Iranian history or the politics
> of
> the Arabian peninsula, then I guess the world must be a much simpler
> place
> than the one I've been hearing about.

First off, no offense taken.

Obviously it is a simplification, (no one could describe any historical
event completely in a paragraph). The world isn't simple, but what drives
it is, greed and control. I will be glad to start a thread of Mid-East
policy if you think I'm short-changing reality. 

Instead of stating that I'm not giving a "fair assessment", how
about going the next step and actually tell me what I've said that isn't
fair. It is really hard for me to clarify when you critique in
generalities. I can provide far more detail on my statements, but I would
like to limit it to the ones you don't agree with.


> > This same military purpose,
> also holds true for Argentina, Venezuela, and
> > Columbia. US "National Interest" dictates that we will
> remain involved in
> > these regions to prevent US oil companies from losing control.
> Especially
> > since the Saudi link started deteriorating last fall.
>
> This is just nonsense.  Of the 3 countries you have just mentioned,
> only
> Venezuela has petroleum reserves that are (at present) even a little
> bit
> interesting in terms of "controlling" world oil markets. 
> There is no
> doubt that oil and energy companies exert undue influence at home
> and
> abroad, but to claim that US oil interests have had anything like
> control
> over the situation is just silly.  I mean, unless you'd like to
> argue that
> they went out of their way to lose their shirts in the 80s when OPEC
> set
> production targets at a level where prices collapsed (to name one
> stupendous debacle).

First, please realize that the majority of gov. officials in this
administration are from the OIL industry. They OWN our government. So no,
it isn't "the industry" that is controlling policy, it is our
oil administration.

For background, here is a
report of US
imports. (note the importance of Latin America)

Venezuela (4th largest US source in 2000) recently had a coup which Bush
administration and corp media supported (they even went as far as
announcing that
Chavez
had resigned). Can you guess where the new president of the day Pedro Carmona came from? Oil (As an executive and a lobbyist, but most US press listed him as a businessman, or an economist, much less descriptive terms.)

In Columbia (7th largest US source in 2000) , Bush has proposed providing $98M in aid to create a brigade to protect the oil pipeline owned by Occidental Oil.

Argentina may not be as large a player, but still are big enough to attract the IMF/World Bank capital. Which, is a system designed to suck all the wealth of a country into the pockets of multi-national corps. Gas and oil are a prime target.

We hear the administration talk of controlling the world's oil supply daily, they just use the phrase "national interest".  Currently every other part of the world economy is dependent on oil, and they are doing their damndest to keep it that way.


> > Other options include rubbing up to Russia, and getting to the gas
> > under the Caspian Sea. Both of which are underway (Bush has seen the
> > soul of Putin, and we are building military bases in the old soviet
> > republics right along the pipeline route).
>
> Ah, now that's getting a bit more interesting.  Russia does indeed control
> a quite stupendous amount of natural gas (more than 1/3 of the currently
> known reserves), and that *could* be a source of tidy profit to the
> partner that helps them exploit it.  But I'm really dubious that Bush has
> any inkling of what Putin is or is not capable of, and I'm not sure why
> anybody would seriously believe that a US oil company could just walk into
> a Russian venture with any firm prediction of profit of any kind.  Russia
> has so far been the "black hole" of more foreign capital than most
> investors would care to admit committing.  It is *far* easier to get US
> laws changed to your liking than it is to get serious money out of a
> kleptocracy.
>
> jking

I agree with your assessment of Russia, but I think the "in" revolves around Bush helping to increase Putin's power.  Also, I don't believe the fear of investment outweighs the greed concerning the potential profit, otherwise, we wouldn't be helping destroy Colombia.


--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/