My new position on Iraq. [Archive]

Labrocca

07-16-2006, 08:07 PM

I think I have changed my mind on the situation. I think we should pull out of Iraq. I think we made a mistake not because there was no WMD's...but because this has turned against us. We started out liberating the people and instead have created an unstable region. I know the intentions of Bush were good however this is going the wrong way. With the recent events of Israel and Lebanon...I think we should have hit Iran instead..or even North Korea.

I think they made a tactical error. I wonder if the Bush administration thought that if we had a presence inside Iraq that Iran would calm down or that we would have a good launching point to go after Iran. As bad as Saddam was...he wasn't a muslim extremist. We could have dealt with him by other means. It's obvious he loved his power and wealth. Men like that are easy to sway with bribes. A fleet of Hummers might have easily made him our friend as much as anything.

I hate to flip flop on a position and I am not blaming anyone but..in light of recent events and judging by where this is going..we should get the heck out. I know we won't but I think we should. Occupation ain't the way. We should just bomb them...heck even steal oil from them. But what we shouldn't be doing anymore is rebuilding Iraq. Fuck'em is my new attitude about all this.

I think Bush made a clear point that America can and will kick ass on anyone that messes with us. We can destroy a government whether it's the old soviet union, afghanistan, or a dictator like saddam. I say we start being bullies. It's how the world sees us anyways. I think nukes and surgical strikes would be best..and a lot cheaper too. Why did we build all those nukes if we ain't gonna use a couple. We already paid for them...let's use them.

Maybe I am just feeling a bit nihilistic.

CheesyMuslim

07-16-2006, 08:17 PM

Mayberry

07-16-2006, 08:58 PM

It's what we should have done from the get go. I don't advocate the use of nukes, but we could have bombed the place to oblivion in two days and been done with it, with not one loss of an American life. The world hates us anyway, so what the hell? We would have done the world a favor weather they want to admit it or not. But I feel it's too late to pull out now. We don't need another Viet Nam on our record. Finish the job, that's the American way, and I think that's what our soldiers want as well.

BoogyMan

07-16-2006, 10:25 PM

Hi Labrocca,

I don't know that you are being nihilistic, I would describe it more as abject frustration.Â*Â*We have gone in and removed a brutal dictator and the world seems to long for the days when he was in power and they didn't actually have to see what liberty costs.Â*Â*Liberty is not cheap in terms of hard currency or the blood of the men who work to obtain it.

I must disagree and say that we truly cannot afford to cut and run.Â*Â*We should demand that the Iraqis stand up and push the insurgents out of their country.Â*Â*It is the same issue that the Lebanese need to deal with concerning Hibollah.

I agree that we should stand up, kick the left wing bedwetter mentality to the sidelines, and just do what we say we are going to do.

PittsburghAfterDark

07-16-2006, 10:37 PM

I am a great proponent of the neutron bomb.

It's looking more and more like there's only one way to deal with these people.

Complete annilhation.

I am not going to be surprised to see some fissionable material put to use in the near term future.

I'm not advocating it but it's realistic. At one point or another the terrorist leadership in Syria is going to be bombed with conventional weapons. That happens all bets are off on this restrained warfare.

Drocket

07-17-2006, 12:52 AM

I think I have changed my mind on the situation.Â*Â*I think we should pull out of Iraq.
Sweet. Welcome to reality.

[/quote]I think we made a mistake not because there was no WMD's...but because this has turned against us.[/quote]
Wait, you're proposing getting out simply because we're getting our butt kicked? There's a lot of good tactical and political reasons for starting a drawdown in Iraq. You've just picked the narrowest and most self-serving one.

I know the intentions of Bush were good...
Ok, never mind that 'welcome to reality' thing.

I think we should have hit Iran instead..or even North Korea.
Actually, we should have simply kept up the work in Afganistan. We could have caught Bin Laden, prevented the Taliban from making a resurgence, created what actually MIGHT have been a democracy in the middle east, and not completely destablized the entire region.

I think they made a tactical error.Â*Â*I wonder if the Bush administration thought that if we had a presence inside Iraq that Iran would calm down or that we would have a good launching point to go after Iran.
They thought they could install a new puppet dictator to replace the defective Saddam 1.0 unit, then giggle in glee as the oil money rolled in.

We should just bomb them...heck even steal oil from them.Â*Â*But what we shouldn't be doing anymore is rebuilding Iraq.Â*Â*Fuck'em is my new attitude about all this.
No, its not. Its simply the newest variation of the old attitude, and is the reason our country is stick in the shithole of a situation it is. That situation is just going to keep going further and further into the crapper as long as we keep pretending that 'kick ass and chew bubble gum' is an actual diplomatic strategy.

bobbylien

07-17-2006, 02:59 AM

Sorry bout that,

1. But I think you crossed the threshold into reality.
2. You have left the twilight zone.
3. Now you have made it.
4. Sure we should start taking over, not trying to be Mister Nice Guy.
5. Put the whole Iraqi Nation in subjection and keep the oil would be a good start.
6. Nuke some areas we don't want to deal with.
7. Threaten the rest.
8. Nuke Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the whole lot, take all the oil.
9. Make those who survive not unlike the American Indians.
10. If they protest, nuke em.

Regards,
SirjamesofTexas

:rolleyes:

I don't think we planned this thing very well. We jumped into this war without knowing for certain that Iraq had these weapons. War should ONLY be used as a last resort. I'm just not convinced that this war was absolutely needed in the first place. I'll be some of Bush's advisors have caught hell for this whole situation. I don't think Bush would be staying in Iraq unless he truely believes that this war can be won. Just pulling all of our troops out right now would be taking the easy way out and definitely sentencing the Iraqi officials to death. Iran would take control of Iraq. I support a phased withdrawl and continued training of the Iraqi security forces so they can protect the country themselves. Letting Iraq spiral into chaos would be a huge mistake, but then again, it doesn't have far to go.

bobbylien

07-17-2006, 03:08 AM

I am a great proponent of the neutron bomb.

It's looking more and more like there's only one way to deal with these people.

Complete annilhation.

I see, who cares about the hundreds of millions of civilians! Lets just nuke them all, then the problem will go away!

lily

07-17-2006, 10:26 AM

Labrocca

I think I have changed my mind on the situation.
You have gained some new found respect. It takes a big person to admit that.
I think Bush made a clear point that America can and will kick ass on anyone that messes with us. We can destroy a government whether it's the old soviet union, afghanistan, or a dictator like saddam.
Yes, we have proved to the world that we can destroy a government. We've also proved to the world, that we can't build one. You can't force democracy, just like they couldn't force communism.
I say we start being bullies.Â*Â*It's how the world sees us anyways.Â*Â*I think nukes and surgical strikes would be best..and a lot cheaper too.Â*Â*Why did we build all those nukes if we ain't gonna use a couple. We already paid for them...let's use them.
The idea of having nukes, is as a deterant. Using them, would bring down the wrath of the entire world.

lily

07-17-2006, 10:32 AM

BoogyMan

Liberty is not cheap in terms of hard currency or the blood of the men who work to obtain it.

I must disagree and say that we truly cannot afford to cut and run. We should demand that the Iraqis stand up and push the insurgents out of their country.

You hit the nail on the head! As long as we're doing the fighting and re-building, why should the Iraqis? From the start, we hired foreigners to come in and do the jobs Iraqis were not only willing and able to do, they were begging to do them........at a quarter of the price we were paying the foreigners. A man with a starving family, will take any job to feed that family and at that time, the only people doing the hiring were the insurgents. Now supposidly they have an army.........after 3 years, why aren't they doing their job? Sooner or later, you have to let go of the apron strings.

How can you have pride in your country, if you're not the one making the country you want?

Nathan Brazil

07-17-2006, 03:11 PM

The goal was to establish a US friendly democracy in Iraq. This will:

Enable us to maintain troops in the region without our getting involved in the totally ridiculous religious shananigans in Saudi Arabia. With Iraq on our side, we could afford to let the House of Saud fall.

With Iraq in our pocket, we can prevent a grand alignment of the oil producing nations.

With troops in Iraq, Iran's regional pretensions are thwarted.

With troops in Iraq, Syria isn't openly hostile. One day, Syria won't be a dictatorship, if we can make the example we're trying to build work.

One thing I have to say to you, Labrocca:

Don't let your membership in the Instant Gratification Generation cloud your vision. It took 15 years or more to fix Germany and Japan, and they both had some traditions of democracy. Tainted by Islam, Iraq has no real tradition of democracy, and the process of freeing the people and teaching them how to build a real government will take longer.

Patience. We're there now, the best thing to do is to do the best we can.

Labrocca

07-17-2006, 05:56 PM

I been watching for my entire life about the middle east conflict. Now we are militarily involved. So far other than taking out Saddam what has truly been accomplished.

With troops in Iraq, Iran's regional pretensions are thwarted.

With troops in Iraq, Syria isn't openly hostile. One day, Syria won't be a dictatorship, if we can make the example we're trying to build work.

Have you been watching the news this week? Iraq and Syria can and are causing trouble. Us being in Iraq imho has emboldened them. They are NOT rational. They don't value life or liberty. They want taliban and saddam...it's a terrible part of the world and the only reason anyone gives a shit is because they have oil. Otherwise it would be like Africa where famine, disease, and war are totally ignored by the masses. No one gives a shit about Africa but because of oil people care about the middle east.

I am kinda tired of it. The shit is about to hit the fan again. My fear is that because we have such a large presence and force there that it will be called upon to act.

Drocket

07-17-2006, 06:25 PM

Us being in Iraq imho has emboldened them.Â*Â*They are NOT rational.
Actually, they're quite rational - Bush has bogged us down in Iraq, making any meaningful retaliation against them impossible. What are we going to do, fly some planes around and blow some random shit up? The only thing that'll accomplish is bring them in more new recruits. Bush has tied our hands, and they're taking advantage of it.

They don't value life or liberty.
As though people like PAD with his 'nuke them all and let god sort them out' values life any more. They value their own goals far more than anything else - just like a whole lot of people on our side.

They want taliban and saddam...
Taliban, maybe. Saddam, not at all. He was far too secular and 'Americanized' for their tastes. We did Bin Laden and friends a major favor by taking him out.

it's a terrible part of the world and the only reason anyone gives a shit is because they have oil. Otherwise it would be like Africa where famine, disease, and war are totally ignored by the masses.Â*Â*No one gives a shit about Africa but because of oil people care about the middle east.
Quite true.

Labrocca

07-17-2006, 09:13 PM

What are we going to do, fly some planes around and blow some random sh1t up? The only thing that'll accomplish is bring them in more new recruits.

Yes I am starting to agree on that point. Progress is slow and that's fine...I really hate to waffle on an opinion but on this one I just been feeling like supporting the war has been harder and harder with each passing month. I wonder what the whole point is. Yeah I can tout the party line and I know that this is a long-term effort..but look at the long-term effort of Israel..it's a shining example that no matter what...these people are gonna be terrorists at heart. I am not sure the USA wants to be as militaristic as Israel and that's what I fear. I don't think diplomacy works with these people either. I just think we need to distance ourselves from the region and stop giving a shit. We should get our oil and run. Fuck'em...

Mayberry

07-17-2006, 10:09 PM

I don't think diplomacy works with these people either. Now you've got the picture! These people could care less about diplomacy. They are hell bent on ridding the world of "infidels" and nothing will stop them save for complete annihilation. They've been fighting for hundreds of years, why would anyone think they'll stop now? Because we asked nicely?

Churchel

07-18-2006, 12:06 AM

I find all of the energy meetings in 2000 questionable as to whether it was a part of any deciding factors with the invasion of iraq. Whatever it is I trust it will not be done until 2009, I do not see this administration backing down and losing face.

Drocket

07-18-2006, 12:07 AM

We should get our oil...

And this, right here, is the heart of every single solitary problem we have in the Middle East. That phrase, "our oil", from which everything else flows. They understand diplomacy - and they understand that "maybe we'll play nice and give you a few shiny gewgaws in exchange for easy access to OUR oil - unless, of course, you prefer to get blown up" isn't diplomacy, anymore than promising the bank clerk that you won't blow her head off if she hands over all the money right now isn't a business negotiation.

Its not OUR oil - its THEIR oil. We just want it, which is worlds away from actually owning it. Nothing is going to improve in the middle east until we approach the problem from an angle other than greed, arrogance and threats of violence.

Deacon

07-18-2006, 04:52 PM

I can't really voice my opinion, because I don't really have one other than these two:

1. Occupations Never Succeed In The End!
2. The Whole MiddleEast is Screwed-Up Right Now!

Nathan Brazil

07-18-2006, 04:59 PM

Occupations never succeed, eh? How many world wars have Germany and Japan started since we stopped occupying their countries?

Deacon

07-18-2006, 05:07 PM

Quite a few :P

NVM.....I saw that line in a movie, that "ocuppations never succeed" and it seems true, IMO

Nathan Brazil

07-19-2006, 08:02 PM

Have you been watching the news this week?Â*Â*Iraq and Syria can and are causing trouble.Â*Â*Us being in Iraq imho has emboldened them.Â*Â*They are NOT rational.Â*Â*They don't value life or liberty.Â*Â*They want taliban and saddam...it's a terrible part of the world and the only reason anyone gives a shit is because they have oil. Otherwise it would be like Africa where famine, disease, and war are totally ignored by the masses.Â*Â*No one gives a shit about Africa but because of oil people care about the middle east.Â*Â*

I am kinda tired of it.Â*Â*The shit is about to hit the fan again.Â*Â*My fear is that because we have such a large presence and force there that it will be called upon to act.

Oil oil oil. Jeez guys, there's more to the invasion of Iraq than oil oil oil. If you haven't noticed, world crude prices are at record levels. Clearly we didn't go there to get cheap oil oil oil.

No one gives a shit about Africa because it has no geographical importance. Altruism is overrated, and people working for known self-interests are more reliable anyway.

The Middle East has the Suez Canal, which hasn't been threatened but which is always available for threats. What it really has is the magic la la land of mystical islam, and all the looney-tune nonsense stone-age religions bring with them. What Iraq has is a position in the center between all the major players. Don't say that our presence in Iraq has fomented the current Isreal/Lebanon game, those fanatics have been blowing up babies there for decades. What the US has done is stopped the Be A Suicide Bomber For Saddam Fund, among other things. And there's no direct connection through Iraq from Iran to Jordan or Lebanon so long as the US remains in Iraq.

Yeah, we have a large force there. Mostly it's being required to deal with fifth column elements from Syria and Iran causing trouble in Iraq. What a shame it would be if we had to replace Syria's government, or Iran's with something else. I'm pretty certain that turning Damascus and Tehran into piles of rocks would greatly ease the situation in Iraq.

Mayberry

07-19-2006, 08:06 PM

I'm pretty certain that turning Damascus and Tehran into piles of rocks would greatly ease the situation in Iraq. Finally, someone who understands how to deal with these savages.

lily

07-19-2006, 08:22 PM

Wouldn't that be dangerously close to genocide?

Mayberry

07-19-2006, 08:29 PM

Wouldn't that be dangerously close to genocide? Naw, it's only 2 cities!

lily

07-19-2006, 08:32 PM

Ok...........you got a laugh out of me!

Mayberry

07-19-2006, 08:39 PM

Don't you feel better now?

Labrocca

07-19-2006, 10:09 PM

I agree...and if you fear the loss of innocent lives. We can do what the Israeli's do and give e 48 hour notice. Give them enough time to evacuate then nuke the place.

lily

07-19-2006, 10:36 PM

Don't you feel better now?

Yep!:D

Drocket

07-20-2006, 12:50 AM

Oil oil oil.Â*Â*Jeez guys, there's more to the invasion of Iraq than oil oil oil.Â*Â*If you haven't noticed, world crude prices are at record levels.Â*Â*Clearly we didn't go there to get cheap oil oil oil.
Of course we didn't go in there to get cheap oil. Cheap oil is only a good thing for us, the average people - that's not the way for oil companies make profits.

What we have is a massively expensive war, paid for by you and me, and extremely high oil prices - paid for, again, by you and me. Meanwhile, companies like Halliburton and Exxon are making money so fast they can't even figure out how to spend it. This isn't just a fortunate random occurance for them.

Nathan Brazil

07-20-2006, 12:08 PM

HINT: The oil companies are paying the $77 a barrel for the oil. They're profit margin is still around 8%, which is essentially average for most businesses.

But thanks for demonstrating the ignorance the left has about capitalism.

Drocket

07-20-2006, 02:50 PM

HINT:Â*Â*The oil companies are paying the $77 a barrel for the oil.

Paying it to who? When the price of oil goes up $10/barrel, where do you think that $10 goes? They throw it into the now-empty well or something?

Nathan Brazil

07-20-2006, 03:13 PM

HINT:Â*Â*The oil companies are paying the $77 a barrel for the oil.

Paying it to who?Â*Â*When the price of oil goes up $10/barrel, where do you think that $10 goes?Â*Â*They throw it into the now-empty well or something?

Usually when someone buys something, they buy it from the person selling it, and the act of "buying" involves paying money to the seller.

That being the case, I would expect that the oil companies pay the sellers of the oil the money.

Was that so difficult you couldn't figure it out without help?

Drocket

07-20-2006, 04:51 PM

The question, then, is who the sellers of the oil are.Â*Â*Give me a yell when you figure out what companies that produce oil are generally refered to as.

Mayberry

07-20-2006, 05:06 PM

The question, then, is who the sellers of the oil are. Give me a yell when you figure out what companies that produce oil are generally refered to as. Having worked as a petroleum inspector (cargo surveyor) I can tell you that the sellers of oil are too numerous to keep track of. I have inspected cargos that have changed hands 6 or more times during it's journey from point A to point B, about a month's time. There's one reason for the ever increasing price, everyone's got their finger in the pie and taking a profit. There's the initial seller who pumped it out of the ground, load port terminal operator, load port shipping agent, load port cargo inspector, load port customs (or whatever they call it where it came from), the shipping company (and all their other associated costs), cargo insurance company, the umpteen traders who buy and sell the cargo over and over again while enroute, then the reverse of all the above at the discharge port.

Drocket

07-20-2006, 05:38 PM

Quite true, but no matter how many times its bought, sold, resold, reresold, rereresold, and sold again, there's a company at the beginning of the chain - an oil company - who's make a killing on the high oil prices. Then you have all the companies in between who do all their dealings who are also making massive profits off of the high oil prices, and then the final reseller who's ALSO making huge profits. And if you actually look at the different companies in that chain of continuous reselling, its remarkable how few of them there actually are, even though they operate under a hundred different names via subdivisions. It makes you wonder exactly how common Enron-style trading actually is.

Nathan Brazil

07-20-2006, 05:55 PM

Yeah, in Saudi Arabia the oil company isn't called "Exxon" or "Shell", it's called "King".

In Iraq, it's called...well, whatever the Iraqi government agency is called that controls the oil.

In Iran, it's called President Lunatic.

In Venezuela it's called "I hate America, Long Live the Revolution".

That's who owns the oil in those places. All that shit was nationalized years ago, and the oil companies bid on options to buy oil at stated prices.

Try to figure out what an 8% profit margin means, okay?

Drocket

07-20-2006, 06:32 PM

Yeah, in Saudi Arabia the oil company isn't called "Exxon" or "Shell", it's called "King".
Actually, it IS called Exxon. Or if you want to be picky, Aramco, of which Exxon is the largest stakeholder.

Nathan Brazil

07-21-2006, 11:36 AM

Yeah, in Saudi Arabia the oil company isn't called "Exxon" or "Shell", it's called "King".
Actually, it IS called Exxon.Â*Â*Or if you want to be picky, Aramco, of which Exxon is the largest stakeholder.

Can you explain which part of "8% profit margin" is confusing you? That's what Exxon showed when it reported a record dollar value of profit a little while ago.

Drocket

07-21-2006, 05:55 PM

Its an 8% profit - depending on how you count it.

One clear example of how Exxon's profits don't actually reflect reality is executive bonuses. Exxon gave the record bonus of over $400 million to a single executive. Taking out that bonus *alone* bumps up the profit margin to 10%. And Exxon gave BILLIONS more to a couple dozen other executives. Taking out executive bonuses, the profit margin is more like 18%.

You also have to remember that Exxon is more than just an oil company - they have multiple subdivisions. Their chemical division, in particular, is quite large. Just looking at their website, they also have technology divisions, a line of convenient stores (seperate from their gas stations), some sort of travel club, and more. Most of those divisions aren't going to have profit margins anywhere near 18%, or even 8% - that means that the profits from the oil division in particular is even HIGHER, and is just being dragged down less profitable divisions.

Nathan Brazil

07-21-2006, 06:47 PM

HINT: The total profit margin is 8%. That includes lower margin side businesses and whatever prizes the CEO's get. Since I don't own Exxon stock, I don't really care what the CEO's get paid. After all, if the money didn't go to the CEO's, it would merely show up as increased dividends for stockholders. There's absolutely no reason why it would ever show up as reduced retail prices, therefore how it's distributed among the stockholders doesn't matter to me in the least.

So that little socialist class envy attack fizzled.

Know who the biggest profiteer is at the gas pump? Yep, the state and federal governments. The state alone takes a minimum 8.25% sales tax, plus it's own special fuel taxes, usually running a couple percent or so. So while Exxon is making 8% on the dollar, the socialist state government is making 10% at the state level. I forget what the bite of the feds is, but on the whole the tax paid at the pump amounts to 25% of the total, or possibly more.

Want to make life easier on the little guy? Quit bitching about "BIG OIL", and start bitching about Greedy Government.

After all, government is the biggest cause of trouble in all the world, anyway.

Drocket

07-22-2006, 12:45 AM

HINT:Â*Â*The total profit margin is 8%.
That was exactly my point. Right off the bat, Exxon is making MUCH more than an 8% profit on their oil division. Just because they've made some other investments that haven't payed off doesn't make up for the fact that they ARE price-gouging at the pump. And the fact that they manage an 8% profit margin despite giving *BILLIONS* in bonuses to their top executives is a hint that their 'real' profit margin - the difference between what they're actually paying for reality-based business expenses and what they're charging you - is an assload bigger than 8%.

Nathan Brazil

07-22-2006, 01:10 AM

I just went through that. Whenever you feel like repeating yourself again, please copy my post and append it to the bottom of your re-utterance to save me the trouble of having to point out your ignorance over and over again.

Perhaps you could look up the concept of "total"?

Churchel

07-25-2006, 02:34 AM

Nathan Brazil

07-25-2006, 11:53 AM

Want to make life easier on the little guy?Â*Â*Quit bitching about "BIG OIL", and start bitching about Greedy Government.

At this point you are saying there is a difference?

If exxon is setting on 100 million barrels they paid 50 dollars for and the price rises to 77 do you think they sell it for 50?Â*Â*Its all about the spot price, that is how commodity trading and futures work.

Yeah, that's how it works. It's called a "contract", and the concept of integrity of a contract is the cement that holds this society together. I take it you'd prefer a fascist government that dictates what prices and profits should be?

Yes, there's a difference. The market controls business. Given enough stupid people, and nothing can control greedy government.

I see you didn't say a word about the enormous profit government is making off the higher prices.

Churchel

07-28-2006, 01:20 AM

Want to make life easier on the little guy?Â*Â*Quit bitching about "BIG OIL", and start bitching about Greedy Government.

At this point you are saying there is a difference?

If exxon is setting on 100 million barrels they paid 50 dollars for and the price rises to 77 do you think they sell it for 50?Â*Â*Its all about the spot price, that is how commodity trading and futures work.

Yeah, that's how it works.Â*Â*It's called a "contract", and the concept of integrity of a contract is the cement that holds this society together.Â*Â*I take it you'd prefer a fascist government that dictates what prices and profits should be?

Yes, there's a difference.Â*Â*The market controls business.Â*Â*Given enough stupid people, and nothing can control greedy government.

I see you didn't say a word about the enormous profit government is making off the higher prices.Â*Â*

Pennsylvania taxes by the gallon, not price. Since our big oil companies are in texas, the state of texas and the federal government profits from those taxes. Funny how texas and the feds make out from gas prices being high.

Corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism), anyone?

Nathan Brazil

07-28-2006, 03:58 AM

Churchel

07-28-2006, 02:11 PM

Pennsylvania taxes by the gallon, not price.Â*Â*Since our big oil companies are in texas, the state of texas and the federal government profits from those taxes.Â*Â*Funny how texas and the feds make out from gas prices being high.

Corporatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism), anyone?

Yeah, the federal government doesn't tax gas in Pennsylvania, I forgot.

The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. All taxes are by the gallon, not as a percentage of the price. The government does not make any more or less money from fluxuations.

Mayberry

07-28-2006, 03:14 PM

The government does not make any more or less money from fluxuations. Sssshhhhh!!! You'll give them ideas!

Old Corps Gunny

08-07-2006, 11:52 AM

Churchel, what makes you think Texas is making a bundle of bucks from the oil companies. In case you didn't know, most of the oil wells is Texas have been capped (the oil companies make more profits from imported oil), which put a big hurt on Texas. About the only ones making big money off oil are the Arabs in power and the oil companies, and that isn't going to change any time soon.

Rider

08-07-2006, 12:55 PM

If I make plastic widgets at a cost of $1.00 and sell them for $1.50, I'm making a profit of $.50 per widget, right?

If the price of raw plastic increases so that my cost is now $2.00 per widget and I have to sell them for $2.50, I'm still making $.50 profit per widget.

And of course, the government gets its share of the price hike regardless of the cause.

So the price of oil goes from $50.00 per barrel to $77.00 per barrel. If the price of gas increases to cover the cost, why is Exxon's profit going through the roof?

And of course, the government gets its share of the price hike regardless of the cause.

Hey, I know enough about accounting and such to realize that the term "profit" may be defined many ways, but I smell a rat here.

Also, the supply of oil is controlled by the oil producing countries, making the whole market/spot market/free market a bad joke.