Big Oil Old News

It took a long time for me to get it, I can only hope this helps other people.


You have a big oil president (with a big oil / ex-cia chief daddy), with a big oil vice president. You have the sec. of state who use to have an oil liner named after her from her big oil days. You have two wars in big oil countries. You have the new leader in Afghanistan as a former big oil company consultant. You have a pipeline that is now finally able to be built there after years and years of waiting thanks to this â??magical occurrenceâ?? of big oil people being in the right place at just the right time. To top it all off, gas prices are doing just great â?? I wonder how that works out for the oil industry ?

It's all innocent coincidence.


I know this is old news, some people need reminding.

hey, bush is there to protect USA from terrorists, didnt u hear the last news?

LOL

Their argument began by noting the critical importance of petroleum in the modern world. "With the increase in demand that will occur under war conditions, the successful conduct of a major war by the United States and its allies will be dependent upon continuing availability of foreign petroleum supplies." Even in peacetime, "major sources of foreign oil are, now indispensable to the economy of Europe and in the future may become indispensable even to the peacetime economy of the United States." Yet, there were only two known areas which could supply the necessary quantities of this petroleum, Venezuela and the Middle East. While Venezuela was important for our domestic supply in time of war, the Middle East was important for the supply of Europe in time of peace. "Since Venezuela and the Middle East are the only sources from which the free world's import requirements for petroleum can be supplied . . . nothing can be allowed to interfere substantially with the availability of oil from these sources to the free world." It was vitally important that these two remaining areas of available free world imports not fall under Communist control. Yet, turning to the Middle East, this danger seemed real and present.

Because, the paper continued, the oil producing states of the Middle East "are on or near the borders of the Soviet Union," and because of certain local conditions, "the Middle East comprises one of the most explosive areas of the world." Since oil is "the principal source of wealth and income in the Middle Eastern countries in which the deposits exist," the "economic and political existence" of these countries "depends upon the rate and terms on which oil is produced." Since the rate and terms in question are to a large extent under the control of the oil companies operating in the area, the "American oil operations are, for all practical purposes, instruments of our foreign policy toward these countries."

Just as important is their role in dealing with the, Arabs, however, is the companies' role in dealing with the Europeans. The terms on which they supply western Europe with oil "are critical to the strength and balance-of-payments position of this area which is vital to our security."

Because of their role as an instrument of our foreign policy both in Europe and the Middle East, any attack on our oil companies would be viewed in those areas as a fundamental attack on the whole American system.

This is basic U.S. foreign policy in the middle east. This policy has been affect since after world war II. Bush and Blair have just skewed the facts to carry out this policy. Sure it may profit them also.

Hey, wait a sec, didnt you hear?

Gas is the cheapest liquid sold on the mass market.

Milk, water, soda, OJ, all cost more per gallon than gasoline.

They have to be doing the right thing ... right?

I would like to point out maybe an interesting thought.

With all of the other liquids, there is a cost involved with the upkeep of the source of the product.

Milk and OJ are the easy examples, but even water these days has to be filtered and cleaned in many places.

Oil has no need of upkeep of the actual source.

There is only the need for equipment upkeep. And the same can be said for all the other liqiuds.

It just seems strange that these other providers can make money with the extra money drain, when the actual prices are not that much higher than that of a product that would be less upkeep.

Also, is there some sort of coincidence that. Why would it be so popular to only drink bottled water?

Are our water supplies really that bad off?

Peace.