No, 2the9s, I am not wanting to hurt anybody's feelings.
No, TheMax, I dont want to question your integrity as an American Citizen.
No, Nep2nes, I dont hate your friend and guardian George W. Bush. In fact, I dont hate.
Yes, IceNine, I am getting a hard-on bringin up this issue.
Yes, my american brothers and sisters, I love you all. I love your country, its people, bagels, jazz, Venice Beach, The Simpsons and John Coltrane. I just dont agree with your government's policies. Can we talk about that?
Yes, everbody else (sorry if I left somebody out above), I want to provoke and I put this up to hear your opinion about this. Maybe this time we can have a debate without flames? I think we have been getting there on my last thread...


Let's put things in the crudest possible terms. Since long before the Gulf War, the United States has been bombing, destabilizing and, yes, terrorizing other countries for cheap, plentiful oil. Don't stand between a
hyperpower and its blood supply. American thirst for oil helps to explain all kinds of recent international
events, including the war on terrorism. This February, everyone was too busy counting dead Al Qaeda to notice Hamid Karzai, the new US-backed Afghan president, strike an agreement with Pakistan for a
trans-Afghanistan pipeline from the vast Caspian oil reserves. Rumored to be in the running for the multi-billion-dollar contract: American petroleum giant Unocal, who in the late 1990s tried and failed to
negotiate a similar deal with the Taliban. Then there's April's short-lived coup against the elected government of oil-rich Venezuela, a revolt supported and possibly initiated by the Bush administration to guarantee supplies in the event of an Arab embargo.
Big Oil and the Bush administration go way back. Both the Bush family and US Vice President Dick Cheney got rich in the petroleum biz. Fossil-fuel companies contributed $1.8 million to George Bush's 2000
presidential campaign. Bush Sr. is an advisor to the Carlyle Group, which observers say secured lucrative Saudi Arabian investments as payback for Pappy Bush's stomping of Iraq in the Gulf War. Hamid
Karzai used to consult for Unocal, as did Zalmay Khalilzad, US special envoy to Afghanistan. Months before September 11, American officials told the Pakistani foreign secretary that an attack on Afghanistan was
planned for October.
In a global economy fuelled by the combustion engine, the US won't let OPEC hold it over a barrel much longer. American gas pumps must keep running over at rock-bottom prices – with the profits flowing to
American oil barons. Accomplishing that requires a war on many fronts, in many guises, and with many tragic consequences. Who better to make it happen than George W. Bush, a man whose private fortunes
mesh so seamlessly with his public ambitions? It's nothing personal. It's just business.
Benefiting most unabashedly from these cozy arrangements is ExxonMobil, also known as Esso and Imperial Oil. The world's biggest oil and gas company, it's on its way to making petroleum the new
tobacco. While Shell, BP, and other smaller players are coming round to renewable energy, ExxonMobil will have none of it. Researching alternatives like wind and solar power might cut into the bottom line
($17.7 billion in 2000, the largest profit of any corporation in history).
ExxonMobil has better ways to spend its money: stepping up exploration and production, helping get George Bush elected, lobbying the US government to abandon the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
As a result, ExxonMobil is now the worst polluter on the planet. It also rejects all evidence that fossil fuels cause global warming, predicted to endanger hundreds of millions of lives over the next century.
ExxonMobil can't do any of these things if people stop driving up to its pumps and buying gas.

Source (with a nice pic of dick cheney): http://adbusters.org/campaigns/got_oil

I've wondered why we can't switch from petroleum products to ethanol. As I understand it, ethanol comes from grain... we could simply grow all the fuel we need. Aside from reducing our dependency on foreign oil, it could help struggling farmers.

matt said:

there are many alternatives, matt. cars could be driven with H2. but its not profitable. if you come up with a cool concept, be sure you have the oil lobby on your ass.

The United States Government offers a $2,000 tax deduction if you buy a electric / gas hybrid (fuel-cell) car such as the Prius.

So I think this is a step in the right direction. Despite what you think efforts are being made (small as they may be) to become less of a oil-dependent country.

lovemachine said:

I heard about that. however, thats like throwing pearls before the swines. if you read that essay right you would understand that the US government is centered around the oil-mafia. that tax-dedcution is an alibi. a good move would be to support companies who produce electric/gas hybrid (fuel-cell) cars with tax money so they can get them out on the market in mass production, and most important, cheaper than a normal car. only that truly awards the buyer of such a car.

The whole world revolves around oil. It is not just for fuel. It makes up most our plastics, and what's made out of plastic? Almost everything! Petroleum is also in many of our clothes, carpets, furniture, computers, CDs, electronics, film, pens, etc., etc., etc. You tell me what the alternative is? We have a long way to go if we think we can replace all of our petroleum-based products. And this is WHY the United States (and most every other country in the world) goes to war. Look up the history of the Standard Oil Company and the Rockefellers for a start. We little people are just pawns in this game of riches and world power. The United States will always be an oil-dependent country. Not much we can do at this point but try our best as individuals to be self-sufficient in the best way we know how or else move to a third world country that isn't oil-dependent. They don't have much to offer though.

The History of the Standard Oil Company by Ida M. Tarbell, 1904: http://www.history.roches...l/MAIN.HTM
The entire book online.

Jasziah said:

thanks. good link.

Soulpower, you have put me in an awkward position with this editorial. In responding to this article, in an effort to discuss or possibly defend our governement's policies, we run the risk of trying to defend the oil industry. While I acknowledge that the two are linked, I reject the interpretation of events offered in the article.

As a journalist, you clearly understand the difference between an editorial and a news article. This is an opinion piece, laced with facts, loaded with biased interpretation. So let me show you how this American reads the article:

soulpower said:

Have we bombed or "destabilized" Saudi Arabia lately? In fact, haven't the oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia used their legitimate oil-derived economic clout to influence our government's policies? All one need do is review the Saudi-led oil embargo of 1967 to protest the US support for Israel in the "Six Day War." There were further, more effective embargos like 1973, now for mostly economic reasons, which led to a recession in the US, but no "bombing and destabilization."

So in reality, both oil-producing AND oil-consuming nations have intermixed their economic and idealogic goals in a complex web, sometimes with military involvement.



Ludicrous. The current administration's "war on terrorism" is a direct response to the vicious attacks of September 11. There is no smoking gun, just a big hole in lower Manhatten and the graves for 3000+ completely innocent civilians. Did the "anger" of those responsible for the attacks have something to do with their role in oil production and our dependence on them? Somehow, yes. But to turn it around as if we planned the attacks to run a secret Exxon-Mobil agenda is shameful nonsense.



Horrible, isn't it. The new Afghan leader (for as long as he can survive) is interested in bringing economic opportunity to his war-weary, beaten country. No apology appears needed. Please don't suggest that we placed BinLaden in Afghanistan in order find a reason to bomb the Taliban so that we could help Unocal build a pipeline. This is the sort of crap that makes me laugh.



It comes as no surprise to me that the "leaders" of the world's largest consumer of energy, these United States, would have a lot to do with the oil industry. Fortunately, it has not always been true, but you seem to want to lump our entire government in with the Bushs and Cheneys. We have a complex government - most of our elected officials have no direct link to the petroleum industry.



Ridiculous hyperbole. The real money-makers are the OPEC nations themselves. We're "over a barrel," but so are they. They are as greedy as we are. The Saudis have heard Iraq and Iran advise another oil embargo, but they won't do it, even if we remove Saddam Hussein from power. It's not out of fear of reprisal. It's out of sheer greed that the oil flows. Tell OPEC that it is the US who controls their oil prices - they'll laugh.



Isn't it interesting that you chose the 2000 profit report. Since the heinous attacks of September 11, their profits are down 23%. So much for the grand conspiracy that big oil planned the attacks in order to "bomb and destabilize" the region for personal gain.

Hey, whatever. You believe what you need to believe to make sense of the world. And I'll do the same. But there are several points that we should agree on:

• The US consumes too much energy. We are a rich nation, but we should think globally when it comes to our insatiable appetite for oil/energy.
  
• The price of oil in this country is too low. If we want to encourage conservation, we should increase prices. Then watch the US fascination with large SUV's vanish.
  
• Our progress toward energy efficiency should be acknlowledged. On average, our per capita consumption of energy is down when compared to 30 years ago, and as a percentage of world energy consumption, we used to be around 30%, now we're lower, around 25%. And finally, less than 3% of our electricity is generated by petroleum (it was 17% just 20 years ago).

So as I said at the beginning of this post, it doesn't feel great defending "big oil," but I am happy to defend this country from revisionist historians or those who simply want to blame us for the world's problems.

Max, I will get back to you tomorrow, had a hard and long day and I need to sleep. I agree with some points you make. only so much for now: you are right, this clearly is an editorial, or an essay. I dislike the first paragraph as much as you, I was thinking of editing it out, but since its not my newspaper and the authorof this editorial should have the chance to be heard in full, I have decided against it.
till tomorrow.

Oil is just one resource...useless and worthless at one point in our history, useful and valuable at another. There are no shortages, only regulations and price-fixing. It's not so much that oil companies are evil so much as it is the fact that they have some government influence.

I actually think hyrdogen is the next viable fuel--electricity is a little too weak for cars. Sooner or later, hydrogen will be cheap enough to produce such that the pressures of uncle sam will not be able to outweigh consumer demand...time does its work, as always...

Hey soulpower just a quick word 2 the wise; the X-Files was canceled last season. Just thought you might like to know.

funkbible said:

couldnt care less. never really wateched it. can you explain me what that has to do with this thread?