Privateering was useful in Jefferson’s day because the USA had a joke of a navy at the time. We needed all the help we could get.
But now, who in the world would you hire for a military op/assassination if you had your druthers? I’d pick the US military, every time. Why hire private semiprofessionals when we have the best military on the planet?
While our military is certainly no joke, some people say that the Isreali military is pretty damn badass. They just don’t have the money we do.
So let’s send the Navy Seals. They’re seriously badass, right?
stoid
Sorry, but statements like this betray a fundamental ignorance of how the oil and gas industry works.
I really wish I had time to dig up cites to explain the faulty reasoning here, but all I can say right now is do a bit of research. In particular, here are some possible questions to ask oneself:
Who actually controls the oil in the Caspian region (hint, the owners are soveriegn countries, not American companies)?
Is oil produced in the Caspian cheaper to buy on the open market than oil from the Arabian Peninsula?
Which region has by far the larger reserves: the Caspian or the Arabian Peninsula?
Has Cheney only ever spoken publically on the subject of oil, to the exclusion of all else, and has he only ever spoken favorably about the Caspian oil province to the exclusion of all others?
If cheap oil is such a good thing for the Bushes, why did Senior prosecute a war against Iraq, then agree to a embargo that kept Iraq’s 1-2 million barrels/day of oil off the market for some time after the close of the war, driving prices up for several years?
Again (I asked this before but no one answered), do any of the companies in which the Bushes hold an interest specifically, stand to benefit from a) Caspian oil production or b) a pipeline constructed across Afghanistan?
How does it benefit the Bushes if companies that compete with their interests would be the main benficiaries of a pipeline in Afghanistan?
The issue of Bush family riches arguably should have been an issue during the election process. Why did most voters ignore it, and what makes it more important now?
After I see the answers to these questions, then maybe I’ll believe in this oil conspiracy.
Sorry, but statements like this betray a fundamental ignorance of how the oil and gas industry works.
I really wish I had time to dig up cites to explain the faulty reasoning here, but all I can say right now is do a bit of research. In particular, here are some possible questions to ask oneself:
Who actually controls the oil in the Caspian region (hint, the owners are soveriegn countries, not American companies)?
Is oil produced in the Caspian cheaper to buy on the open market than oil from the Arabian Peninsula?
Which region has by far the larger reserves: the Caspian or the Arabian Peninsula?
Has Cheney only ever spoken publically on the subject of oil, to the exclusion of all else, and has he only ever spoken favorably about the Caspian oil province to the exclusion of all others?
If cheap oil is such a good thing for the Bushes, why did Senior prosecute a war against Iraq, then agree to a embargo that kept Iraq’s 1-2 million barrels/day of oil off the market for some time after the close of the war, driving prices up for several years?
Again (I asked this before but no one answered), do any of the companies in which the Bushes hold an interest specifically, stand to benefit from a) Caspian oil production or b) a pipeline constructed across Afghanistan?
How does it benefit the Bushes if companies that compete with their interests would be the main benficiaries of a pipeline in Afghanistan?
The issue of Bush family riches arguably should have been an issue during the election process. Why did most voters ignore it, and what makes it more important now?
After I see the answers to these questions, then maybe I’ll believe in this oil conspiracy.
One does wonder how Blackbeard, Sir Francis Drake, et al are going to find ships as good as the Enterprise and the Theodore Roosevelt…
Well, I hope so too. Just because he’s most likely above-board, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be watching closely, and publicly, to help keep him honest. Stridency in that regard is counter-productive, as people tend to dismiss it as “lunatic fringe”. Well reasoned, well-researched, and well-presented commentary, OTOH, is really effective: It comes across with authority.
Before, in Kuwait, we had a local bully, beating up on the weakest kid on the block. That, too, bought us enourmous license, especially since we were only part (even if the largest one there) of the crowd beating on the bully. The locals wouldn’t tolerate us killing the bully then, they’re less likely now to tollerate us burning down the house of the man hiding a murderer. They will, however, tollerate us kicking down the door and going in after the vicious SOB…
So Stoid, you are worried that the Bush family has a lot of stake in this war? Well gee, I think that we all have a lot at stake in this war.
And just what is in his power to do? Should he sign an executive order demanding his father to give up his holdings?
How can anyone be in favor of privateers and mercenaries, and be against increased gun ownership? Should we send bounty hunters into Afghanistan armed with pepper spray?
I think that it’s rather obvious that he was talking about domestic terrorism. Foreigne terrorism is a different matter entirely. Do you think that “alienation of the German people” was on anyone’s mind during the planning of D-Day? The Taliban already hate us.
They might do this, might do that. But it’s just as conceivable that failing to respond to these attacks will embolden terrorists.
Okay, I see where you get the “interest” part. Now where is that “conflict” part coming from?
BTW, anyone who says something like this:
automatically loses almost all credibility in my eyes. Unless of course they’re equipped with a time machine.
What doubt? Just what is in doubt here?
I see. They’re under investigation, so obviously they must be guilty of something, right?
You seem to be seriously confused as to just where the burden of proof lies. A lack of concern requires absolutely no justification.
Dr.Pinkie
Which would be what exactly?
Maeglin
But once those investments involve overseas interests, suddenly there is a correlation to the correctness of his policies?
He was clearly stating that there was an implied ad hominem attack in the OP.
Puh-lease Stoid, how sincere can you be about questioning presidents if you recently said “I miss Bill so much I can taste it”? (It may not be an exact quote, 'cause I can’t find the thread at this moment). You mean let’s question THIS president 'cause he’s not “your” president.
I agree that in general we should not give anyone in Government blanket authority without checks and balances. But remember that this is not just George tossing tomohawks. All of Congress approved, and will continue to watch and question him. Are you saying that some of our Senators would not bring up issues in the near future if conflict of interest made George prolong the war? Granted, they may be unwilling to do so in the heat of battle, but I’m sure we would hear things soon enough from Feinstein if Bush was trying to profit, or better yet Senator Clinton.
As for your suggestion on privateering, since we already have some of the best in the world in our Armed Forces, that’s going to be who we would logically send in, and apparently have (Rangers).
Conflict of interest or no, we need this (terrorist threat) taken care of. If it begins to look like W is prolonging military action and unnecessarily endagering lives, than we should take him to task. Right now, I believe the bare minimum has not been accomplished.
By the way, one item that gives credence to your OP is all that clamour in the news about the “future Government” of Afghanistan coming from the U.S., Britain, and a few other coalition members. The statements they are making, such as the one from Colin Powell to include Moderate Taleban members in the new Government, do suggest that the U.S. and others want a “friendly” Afghanistan. Otherwise why would they care what sort of Government is in place after Osama is dead or gone, and the current regime is powerless?
IIRC, not all of Congress approved. There was one dissenting vote.
You know, the ‘Big Oil’ conspiracy is just the left’s equivalent of the World Banking Conspiracy and the other right-wing nutjob conspiracies.
‘Big oil’ is a meaningless phrase, as is ‘Oil Man’. Not all ‘Oil Men’ have the same interests. An ‘Oil Man’ who owns wells in Texas doesn’t particularly want to see cheap oil from overseas. An ‘Oil Man’ who builds equipment for oil exploration has goals that are diametrically-opposed to ‘Oil Men’ who own proven reserves.
Gee, just like any other industry, it turns out that there is no grand conspiracy.
As for Middle-East oil, please explain what the U.S. could do to make it ‘safe’ for oil? After all, even if the revolutionary martian jihad party comes into power, one assumes that they still need to live and eat, and therefore will still want to sell their oil. Who are they going to sell it to, if not us? It’s a ridiculous argument, unless you believe that there is a realistic chance that a government will attain power in one of these countries that will destroy the oil fields.
And if they did destroy those oil fields, just who would benefit? Answer: American oil companies, because the price of oil would spike upwards. I live in a ‘big oil’ province (Alberta), and every time something destabilizing happens in the Middle East our provincial revenue goes up by a few billion dollars.
As for the silly notion of Privateers… Can you point to a private army anywhere in the world with the resources capable of launching an attack on the Taliban or Bin Laden? You DO realize that he is hiding somewhere in a hardened shelter with thousands of troops to defend him, don’t you? And if no such army exists, what good is announcing that you want them go in and get Bin Laden? You might as well ask the Great Gazoo.
Where will it all end? Hey, it could go on for a long time, and I don’t want to give you the chance for an ‘I told you so’ if it goes beyond Afghanistan. Everyone knows it might go farther, and that doesn’t validate your OP. In fact, I’d say there’s a greater than 50% chance that American troops will be in Iraq within six months, and maybe a 10% chance that there will be a new government in Saudi Arabia within a year. And THAT is ‘big oil’. But if that happens, it won’t be because of Bush.
Now, let’s talk about rich presidents. First, it’s always struck me as a silly notion that very rich people are more likely to engage in corrupt activities than relatively poor people. Bill Clinton came into office with a net worth of something under a million dollars (I believe it was actually about a half million or so), and left it with the resources to be able to spend a half million dollars of his own money on office space yearly, buy a multi-million dollar penthouse, and in general live like a king. No, I’m not accusing him of corruption - he is now wealthy because of things like speaking engagements and his wife’s book deal. But the fact remains that the temptations of a person in power who has little personal wealth are going to be MUCH greater than someone who simply doesn’t need the money.
If you want to go down the list of congressmen and senators who have been charged and/or convicted of bribery or influence peddling, you’ll find that most of them were NOT wealthy people.
BTW, the president’s own wealth and stock holdings and such are put in a blind trust when he is elected. For all he knows, he’ll lose his shirt over this war because he has no way of knowing how his money is being invested.
Sam Stone:
Arg, me matey. Ye be findin things go a lot easier in this hear thread, iffen you don’t be tryin’ to look at things from one of yer fancy “logical” type standpoints.
Ye can’t debate by reasonin’ someone outta a stance they din’t arrive at through reason, and any more attempts along those lines, an ye’ll be walkin’ the plank!
Just take those sound arguments, and stuff ‘em in yer pegleg. Here, and put this parrot on yer’ shoulder. Trust me, it’ll go a lot easier on ya.
We just be ignorin’ reasonable replies hereabouts.
Climb aboard. I here the Dread Pirate Bin Laden, is always close by these waters this time of year.
I’m lookin’ to sign up some salty sea-dogs as I sail off to plunder the vast and uncountable treasures of that jewel of the Middle East, Afghanistan.
Who’s with me?
Aaargh. I guess I’m in. That picture on page 1 of the N.Y. Times yesterday made it clear that there’s no finer sun-baked mud to be had anywhere.
As long as you promise that Wildest Bill will not be your first mate.
If you want to read up on the subject this page provides a reasonable overview as well as (at the bottom) providing links to a lot more relevant information.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspian.html
As to how much oil there is: It’s difficult to gauge (still at the exploratory stage) but it may amount to about 25% of the known total for the whole mid-East – IMHO, enough prolonged product and employment to pull the whole region out of the Third World.
Besides that, there is also gas.
Its like, you know, cultural.
Now, understand, I don’t think bloated plutocrats are conspiring over cigars and brandy in the War Room. “Well, Chauncey, how can we prolong this dandy little war in order to fatten our portfolios” But, as this thread clearly shows, there are people for whom the Calvin Coolidge quote “The business of America is business” is gospel. They cannot conceive anything else, it would never occur to them! Clearly, anyone who questions or, Heaven forfend, opposes this position is un-American. The well-being of the working man in America is best left in their hands, lest America be dragged down to the socialist Hell of say, Sweden. Further, they are suspicious of persons who do not reflect their culture, as are we all.
Take, just for an instance, the drilling in Alaska issue. Of course, it will benefit Big Oil, of course, it is opposed by well-meaning but naïve tree-huggers The people they hang with, their Hampton homies, are of one mind. And if they need bend the truth just ever so slightly, well, its really for the good of the country, isn’t it? Its about national security!
Well,OK, howzabout a radical proposal: if these guys are so convinced that this is a national security issue, howzabout they volunteer to drill, produce, and refine the product as a purely patriotic gesture, forgoing any income other than what is required to cover their expenses? That would set a bad precedent. Smacks of socialism. Stifles the entreprenurial spirit. They would sooner nail their collective peckers to a tree.
Back in the days when the Labor struggle was in full flower, the war profiteer was a popular cultural icon of evil (“Daddy Warbucks”) You’ll hear no hint of that these days.
Will the Republicans cash in on the horror of WTC to push their agenda? Is a pigs ass pork? Most Democrats have already abandoned any hope of opposing the bloated fantasy of missile defense. “Well, of course, we would all love to spend more money on social programs, but in a time of crisis, defense and security come first.”
As soon as a remotely plausible “national security” justification can be cooked up for loading up the judiciary with “strict constructionists”, they will solemnly intone it.
And they will believe it!
Finally, its not so much that they own this stock or that stock. It is that they are “ruling class”, and the people who’s opinions they trust and rely on are the same.
They are not evil. They are not conspiring. They are simply wrong. They don’t even fight dirty, they hire people to fight dirty on their behalf. They don’t concoct scurrilous rumors, they simply believe them because everybody they know believes them. (“You heard, didn’t you, about {elucidator, stoid, our ilk}, how they spit on firemen at the airport”)
It’s not that the Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes. He is. He is wearing our clothes!
Arrrrrr!
Looks like ye found us out elucidator. And we would have gotten away with it too if it hadn’t been for you meddlin’ liberals!
Amazin’ how they figured out our plan and pronounced us guilty before we even did anything. How’d they know?
But don’t ye be worryin’ Jackmanni. They’ll never live to tell the tale. We’ll yet be loadin’ our hold with the precious Afghani Mud and rubble to live like kings!
Bring her broadside and loose all guns on that liberal galleon off starboard 'afore they can board!
OK, one more try, then I’m done. The premise of the OP, as stated in the title and supported by the text, is that the conflict in Afghanistan may be a cover for a plan to stabilize the country enough for a pipeline to go through. The only supporting argument, that the government could have hired mercs to go after bin Laden, is, shall we say, a bit weak.
I don’t think I’ve been unnecessarily harsh on Stoid for this, just asking for something more in the way of actual facts, rather than, like Jake Gittes in Chinatown, futile railing:
“He’s rich! Do you understand? He thinks he can get away with anything.”
Personally, I can’t stand Dubya. It’s just that my experience in the oil industry tells me that this supposed plot just doesn’t wash.
And London Calling, thanks for the link, I had come across that one a couple of days ago but lost it.
These scurvy scalliwag liberals don;t follow thr rules of engagement. At least we waited till he got his hummer before we crucified him and started with the Wag the Dog insane conspiracy theories.
“And despite the courage of the clueless crew
The Scylla is still lost…
A three hour tour…”
I am completely sincere. (And you got the quote exactly right…since when does questioning the government mean I have to hate them all equally? That makes no sense) I just didn’t need to worry about whether Clinton could get away with anything, considering that he was under a microscope from the moment he was elected. Millions and millions of dollars, a never ending quest into every aspect of his and his wife’s lives, and in the end the most that came out of it was a blowjob. Anyone who could keep a big secret under those circumstances practically deserves to keep it!
I say let’s question this president because suddenly the whole damn country thinks he’s just peachy and isn’t questioning him * at all. * I don’t think it is possible to get two more different scenarios.
As to Congress keeping an eye, Congress does what Congress thinks will get Congress re-elected. If they think that the country wants them to let Dubya do whatever he wants, they’ll let him do it. That would be the heart of my point: we mustn’t let this fear of terrorism make us blind.
stoid