Would you buy your medications from Amtrak?

[mebison]

Thanks JMU DJ, useful information

[BDKJMU]

the government takes on the costs and risks of development in the oil industry?

Houndawg, how delusional are you

Government took a lot of risks to secure Iraqs oil for the oil industry, BD. Put Osama on the back burner to do it.

I guess you aren't old enough to remember Vietnam, but that was all about bearing the cost for big oil back when the world's largest unproven reserves were in the South China Sea.

We do the dying, they sell us the oil.

Every GI who served in Iraq and the dependents of those who died should get free gas for life from the oil scum he risked his neck for.

Oh spare me all the leftist Vietnam and Iraq wars were all about oil baloney.

You said the govt takes on the costs and risks of development in the oil industry. The biggest costs and risks of development is remote area and offshore exploration, esp deepwater. Thats funny. I don't know of any US govt exploratory oil platforms.

[JMU DJ]

Government took a lot of risks to secure Iraqs oil for the oil industry, BD. Put Osama on the back burner to do it.

I guess you aren't old enough to remember Vietnam, but that was all about bearing the cost for big oil back when the world's largest unproven reserves were in the South China Sea.

We do the dying, they sell us the oil.

Every GI who served in Iraq and the dependents of those who died should get free gas for life from the oil scum he risked his neck for.

Oh spare me all the leftist Vietnam and Iraq wars were all about oil baloney.

You said the govt takes on the costs and risks of development in the oil industry. The biggest costs and risks of development is remote area and offshore exploration, esp deepwater. Thats funny. I don't know of any US govt exploratory oil platforms.

The US Govt does lease government property to oil companies for exploration... though not directly involved in the actual exploratory process, they can dictate where drilling occurs and they do receive royalties from the leasing of the land/production value. See Mineral Land Leasing Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

[BDKJMU]

Oh spare me all the leftist Vietnam and Iraq wars were all about oil baloney.

You said the govt takes on the costs and risks of development in the oil industry. The biggest costs and risks of development is remote area and offshore exploration, esp deepwater. Thats funny. I don't know of any US govt exploratory oil platforms.

The US Govt does lease government property to oil companies for exploration... though not directly involved in the actual exploratory process, they can dictate where drilling occurs and they do receive royalties from the leasing of the land/production value. See Mineral Land Leasing Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

And that actually makes the govt boatloads of $ for doing nothing- which is a good thing for the taxpayer. But the govt doesn't take on the costs and risks of development in the oil industry as houndog claimed.

[kalm]

The US Govt does lease government property to oil companies for exploration... though not directly involved in the actual exploratory process, they can dictate where drilling occurs and they do receive royalties from the leasing of the land/production value. See Mineral Land Leasing Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

And that actually makes the govt boatloads of $ for doing nothing- which is a good thing for the taxpayer. But the govt doesn't take on the costs and risks of development in the oil industry as houndog claimed.

Unless you include the cost of exploration and security in certain foreign markets.

[houndawg]

Government took a lot of risks to secure Iraqs oil for the oil industry, BD. Put Osama on the back burner to do it.

I guess you aren't old enough to remember Vietnam, but that was all about bearing the cost for big oil back when the world's largest unproven reserves were in the South China Sea.

We do the dying, they sell us the oil.

Every GI who served in Iraq and the dependents of those who died should get free gas for life from the oil scum he risked his neck for.

Oh spare me all the leftist Vietnam and Iraq wars were all about oil baloney.

You said the govt takes on the costs and risks of development in the oil industry. The biggest costs and risks of development is remote area and offshore exploration, esp deepwater. Thats funny. I don't know of any US govt exploratory oil platforms.

I didn't say they took on all the costs, BD, just a lot of the procurement costs that require somebody to die; if you think the invasion of Iraq wasn't first and foremost about oil then you're being wilfully ignorant.

To set your other misconception straight, BD: The biggest risk of development for an oil company is nationalization by a foreign government. (See PEMEX)

The invasion of Iraq was about Saddam threatening to decouple the price of oil from the dollar, and the oil fields were the very first thing we took while Osama was making Christmas videos for Bush in an entirely different country.

Vietnam - I know this is before your time but back then the shallow South China Sea was considered among the, if not the, largest unproven oil reserves on the planet and Standard Oil wasn't going in without long term assurances of a government that would stay bought and not nationalize production as soon as it was on line. The traditional method is to assassinate an unfavorable leader and install a puppet who can keep the peasants in line - with American weaponry of course, and special training for the Secret Police in torture and interrogation techniques at the School of the Americas, after which they're free to pocket as much payola as possible and loot the national treasury as long as they proclaim themselves anti-communist and leave the oil companies alone.

Same reason the Saudis hate us today, propping up a brutal and repressive monarchy.


Not all the costs to us are cash, BD.

[CID1990]

the government takes on the costs and risks of development in the oil industry?

Houndawg, how delusional are you

Government took a lot of risks to secure Iraqs oil for the oil industry, BD. Put Osama on the back burner to do it.

I guess you aren't old enough to remember Vietnam, but that was all about bearing the cost for big oil back when the world's largest unproven reserves were in the South China Sea. We do the dying, they sell us the oil.


Every GI who served in Iraq and the dependents of those who died should get free gas for life from the oil scum he risked his neck for.

Wow, dude.

You and the weird guy who starts the 9-11 truther threads and denies the moon landings.... you two should get a room. Seriously. There is NO legitimate or accepted scholarship that supports the space alien story you just told.

[houndawg]

Government took a lot of risks to secure Iraqs oil for the oil industry, BD. Put Osama on the back burner to do it.

I guess you aren't old enough to remember Vietnam, but that was all about bearing the cost for big oil back when the world's largest unproven reserves were in the South China Sea. We do the dying, they sell us the oil.


Every GI who served in Iraq and the dependents of those who died should get free gas for life from the oil scum he risked his neck for.

Wow, dude.

You and the weird guy who starts the 9-11 truther threads and denies the moon landings.... you two should get a room. Seriously. There is NO legitimate or accepted scholarship that supports the space alien story you just told.

Common knowledge, your CIDness. Are there not derricks pumping that oil as we speak? Is there not a refinery being built at Dung Quat?


We knew there was oil off the coast of Vietnam since Herbert Hoover's original study in the 1920s. Oil companies spent the majority of the 20th century manipulating governments and fabricating conflict. To say Vietnam wasn't about oil is nonsense on a galactic scale.

You're the one who needs to get with some of your birther buddies and play Senator in the Airport Men's Room.

[BDKJMU]

Oh spare me all the leftist Vietnam and Iraq wars were all about oil baloney.

You said the govt takes on the costs and risks of development in the oil industry. The biggest costs and risks of development is remote area and offshore exploration, esp deepwater. Thats funny. I don't know of any US govt exploratory oil platforms.

I didn't say they took on all the costs, BD, just a lot of the procurement costs that require somebody to die; if you think the invasion of Iraq wasn't first and foremost about oil then you're being wilfully ignorant.

To set your other misconception straight, BD: The biggest risk of development for an oil company is nationalization by a foreign government. (See PEMEX)

The invasion of Iraq was about Saddam threatening to decouple the price of oil from the dollar, and the oil fields were the very first thing we took while Osama was making Christmas videos for Bush in an entirely different country.

Vietnam - I know this is before your time but back then the shallow South China Sea was considered among the, if not the, largest unproven oil reserves on the planet and Standard Oil wasn't going in without long term assurances of a government that would stay bought and not nationalize production as soon as it was on line. The traditional method is to assassinate an unfavorable leader and install a puppet who can keep the peasants in line - with American weaponry of course, and special training for the Secret Police in torture and interrogation techniques at the School of the Americas, after which they're free to pocket as much payola as possible and loot the national treasury as long as they proclaim themselves anti-communist and leave the oil companies alone.

Same reason the Saudis hate us today, propping up a brutal and repressive monarchy.


Not all the costs to us are cash, BD.

Houndog with the moonbat lefty Vietnam and Iraq were about oil theories. Are you going to claim that the aasassination of JFK and 9/11 were inside jobs next?

[BDKJMU]

Wow, dude.

You and the weird guy who starts the 9-11 truther threads and denies the moon landings.... you two should get a room. Seriously. There is NO legitimate or accepted scholarship that supports the space alien story you just told.

Common knowledge, your CIDness. Are there not derricks pumping that oil as we speak? Is there not a refinery being built at Dung Quat?


We knew there was oil off the coast of Vietnam since Herbert Hoover's original study in the 1920s. Oil companies spent the majority of the 20th century manipulating governments and fabricating conflict. To say Vietnam wasn't about oil is nonsense on a galactic scale.

You're the one who needs to get with some of your birther buddies and play Senator in the Airport Men's Room.

Common knowledge to you moonbats. Lets see you cite, as Cid put it, any legit or accepted scholarship that backs the imaginary story you just spun.

[houndawg]

I didn't say they took on all the costs, BD, just a lot of the procurement costs that require somebody to die; if you think the invasion of Iraq wasn't first and foremost about oil then you're being wilfully ignorant.

To set your other misconception straight, BD: The biggest risk of development for an oil company is nationalization by a foreign government. (See PEMEX)

The invasion of Iraq was about Saddam threatening to decouple the price of oil from the dollar, and the oil fields were the very first thing we took while Osama was making Christmas videos for Bush in an entirely different country.

Vietnam - I know this is before your time but back then the shallow South China Sea was considered among the, if not the, largest unproven oil reserves on the planet and Standard Oil wasn't going in without long term assurances of a government that would stay bought and not nationalize production as soon as it was on line. The traditional method is to assassinate an unfavorable leader and install a puppet who can keep the peasants in line - with American weaponry of course, and special training for the Secret Police in torture and interrogation techniques at the School of the Americas, after which they're free to pocket as much payola as possible and loot the national treasury as long as they proclaim themselves anti-communist and leave the oil companies alone.

Same reason the Saudis hate us today, propping up a brutal and repressive monarchy.


Not all the costs to us are cash, BD.

Houndog with the moonbat lefty Vietnam and Iraq were about oil theories. Are you going to claim that the aasassination of JFK and 9/11 were inside jobs next?

It's houndawg.

You calling me moonbat?

What is "moonbat", BD, is to deny that invasions, bombing, military assistance to dictators, political interventions, have been employed dozens of times by the US government on behalf of US business interests around the world. The business may not always be oil, often it is.

Iraq was about Saddam threatening to flood the market with cheap oil and threatening to peg it to a different currency.

You know it's true.

You have no alternative to offer so you jest and jape in an attempt to deflect because even you are too embarrassed to try to offer up "democracy for our Iraqi brothers" the "war on terror" as excuses for invading Iraq to retaliate against the Saudis who attacked us and their leader who was known to be in Afghanistan.

[houndawg]

Common knowledge, your CIDness. Are there not derricks pumping that oil as we speak? Is there not a refinery being built at Dung Quat?


We knew there was oil off the coast of Vietnam since Herbert Hoover's original study in the 1920s. Oil companies spent the majority of the 20th century manipulating governments and fabricating conflict. To say Vietnam wasn't about oil is nonsense on a galactic scale.

You're the one who needs to get with some of your birther buddies and play Senator in the Airport Men's Room.

Common knowledge to you moonbats. Lets see you cite, as Cid put it, any legit or accepted scholarship that backs the imaginary story you just spun.

Dude, it was debated all day, every day, throughout the nation, throughout the world, in the newspapers and on TV and on every college campus across the land! "Why are we in Vietnam" was the foremost issue of the day! Nothing else was even close! Where were you when this daily feature of American life was happening?

Er, how about you favor us with your explanation as to what Vietnam and Iraq were all about?

[BDKJMU]

Common knowledge to you moonbats. Lets see you cite, as Cid put it, any legit or accepted scholarship that backs the imaginary story you just spun.

Dude, it was debated all day, every day, throughout the nation, throughout the world, in the newspapers and on TV and on every college campus across the land! "Why are we in Vietnam" was the foremost issue of the day! Nothing else was even close! Where were you when this daily feature of American life was happening?

Er, how about you favor us with your explanation as to what Vietnam and Iraq were all about?

Nice red herring. Still waiting for you to back up your claim by citing any legit or accepted scholarship that backs the imaginary story you spun that Vietnam, was "all about bearing the cost for big oil"

I imagine I'll be waiting a long time....because you can't.

[houndawg]

Dude, it was debated all day, every day, throughout the nation, throughout the world, in the newspapers and on TV and on every college campus across the land! "Why are we in Vietnam" was the foremost issue of the day! Nothing else was even close! Where were you when this daily feature of American life was happening?

Er, how about you favor us with your explanation as to what Vietnam and Iraq were all about?

Nice red herring. Still waiting for you to back up your claim by citing any legit or accepted scholarship that backs the imaginary story you spun that Vietnam, was "all about bearing the cost for big oil"

I imagine I'll be waiting a long time....because you can't.

Define "legit or accepted scholarship", BD. And explain the difference if you would.

We're assuming you will of course duck sharing with us your explanation. Remember, BD, I was watching this crap in real time while the best part of you was running down your mom's boyfriend's leg.

[BDKJMU]

Nice red herring. Still waiting for you to back up your claim by citing any legit or accepted scholarship that backs the imaginary story you spun that Vietnam, was "all about bearing the cost for big oil"

I imagine I'll be waiting a long time....because you can't.

Define "legit or accepted scholarship", BD. And explain the difference if you would.

We're assuming you will of course duck sharing with us your explanation. Remember, BD, I was watching this crap in real time while the best part of you was running down your mom's boyfriend's leg.

Again, your use of a red herring. You FAIL. and I'm still waiting........

[CID1990]

Common knowledge to you moonbats. Lets see you cite, as Cid put it, any legit or accepted scholarship that backs the imaginary story you just spun.

Dude, it was debated all day, every day, throughout the nation, throughout the world, in the newspapers and on TV and on every college campus across the land! "Why are we in Vietnam" was the foremost issue of the day! Nothing else was even close! Where were you when this daily feature of American life was happening?

Er, how about you favor us with your explanation as to what Vietnam and Iraq were all about?

Three or four snarky posts later, and no references to any legitimate scholarship that backs your claim. That was to be expected.

BTW- I am pretty damn close to US-Vietnam diplomacy as we speak. Everyone is here looking at the oil, but the VAST majority of oil interests that are actually currently here are European.

If you get your news from somewhere other than MSNBC, you will also know that our diplomatic efforts in the South China Sea over the last year have been centered more in helping the ASEAN nations settle the disputes over the Spratley and Paracels between China and Vietnam (as well as a couple other nations). The disputes ARE in fact fueled by the oil reserves in the area, but suggesting that we intervened in SE Asia in the 1960's in order to secure oil reserves for ourselves (when even Indonesia has a more legitimate claim) is just making things up.

The old 'fighting for oil' mantra you and yours like to spout is just that: old, tired, and generally inaccurate.

Again, show me some legitimate scholarship behind your assertion.

[houndawg]

Define "legit or accepted scholarship", BD. And explain the difference if you would.

We're assuming you will of course duck sharing with us your explanation. Remember, BD, I was watching this crap in real time while the best part of you was running down your mom's boyfriend's leg.

Again, your use of a red herring. You FAIL. and I'm still waiting........

Here's an article from the American Conservative, BD. Read it and weep.

And then entertain the lefties here by attacking the scholarship of The American Conservative.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/mar/10/00006/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CID1990]

Again, your use of a red herring. You FAIL. and I'm still waiting........

Here's an article from the American Conservative, BD. Read it and weep.

And then entertain the lefties here by attacking the scholarship of The American Conservative.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/mar/10/00006/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think that given the fact that Iraq's oil resources were considered in terms of how Iraq could help finance its own reconstruction, oil is going to play a role in any discussion of our presence in the Middle East. That is why ANYONE is there. If that were not the case it would just be a sandbox lightly populated by Bedouin nomads (which is a state I would like to see them return to).

However, I still see nothing in the article you posted that provides a legitimate claim that our motivation for fighting in Southeast Asia centered around oil.

Thus far you still fail.

Keep Google-ing.

[kalm]

Dude, it was debated all day, every day, throughout the nation, throughout the world, in the newspapers and on TV and on every college campus across the land! "Why are we in Vietnam" was the foremost issue of the day! Nothing else was even close! Where were you when this daily feature of American life was happening?

Er, how about you favor us with your explanation as to what Vietnam and Iraq were all about?

Three or four snarky posts later, and no references to any legitimate scholarship that backs your claim. That was to be expected.

BTW- I am pretty damn close to US-Vietnam diplomacy as we speak. Everyone is here looking at the oil, but the VAST majority of oil interests that are actually currently here are European.

If you get your news from somewhere other than MSNBC, you will also know that our diplomatic efforts in the South China Sea over the last year have been centered more in helping the ASEAN nations settle the disputes over the Spratley and Paracels between China and Vietnam (as well as a couple other nations). The disputes ARE in fact fueled by the oil reserves in the area, but suggesting that we intervened in SE Asia in the 1960's in order to secure oil reserves for ourselves (when even Indonesia has a more legitimate claim) is just making things up.

The old 'fighting for oil' mantra you and yours like to spout is just that: old, tired, and generally inaccurate.

Again, show me some legitimate scholarship behind your assertion.

I haven't heard the oil theory for Viet Nam either, but military, or in the case of Iran, covert intervention to control access to oil ain't much of a conspiracy theory. Bush tried to name the invasion of Iraq after it.

At 5:34 a.m. Baghdad time on March 20, 2003 (9:34 p.m., March 19 EST) the military invasion of Iraq began.[132] The 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by U.S. army General Tommy Franks, began under the codename "Operation Iraqi Liberation",[133] later renamed "Operation Iraqi Freedom",

[CID1990]

Three or four snarky posts later, and no references to any legitimate scholarship that backs your claim. That was to be expected.

BTW- I am pretty damn close to US-Vietnam diplomacy as we speak. Everyone is here looking at the oil, but the VAST majority of oil interests that are actually currently here are European.

If you get your news from somewhere other than MSNBC, you will also know that our diplomatic efforts in the South China Sea over the last year have been centered more in helping the ASEAN nations settle the disputes over the Spratley and Paracels between China and Vietnam (as well as a couple other nations). The disputes ARE in fact fueled by the oil reserves in the area, but suggesting that we intervened in SE Asia in the 1960's in order to secure oil reserves for ourselves (when even Indonesia has a more legitimate claim) is just making things up.

The old 'fighting for oil' mantra you and yours like to spout is just that: old, tired, and generally inaccurate.

Again, show me some legitimate scholarship behind your assertion.

I haven't heard the oil theory for Viet Nam either, but military, or in the case of Iran, covert intervention to control access to oil ain't much of a conspiracy theory. Bush tried to name the invasion of Iraq after it.

At 5:34 a.m. Baghdad time on March 20, 2003 (9:34 p.m., March 19 EST) the military invasion of Iraq began.[132] The 2003 invasion of Iraq, led by U.S. army General Tommy Franks, began under the codename "Operation Iraqi Liberation",[133] later renamed "Operation Iraqi Freedom",

I don't dispute you, Kalm, and the control of natural resources has been a major factor in warfare since... the beginning of warfare.

However, quoted in the above post you can see where Houndawg laid a whopper of a turd and now he needs to back it up.

Diverting to saying things like "Well, we fought in the Middle East for oil!" is not going to cut it.

[BDKJMU]

Again, your use of a red herring. You FAIL. and I'm still waiting........

Here's an article from the American Conservative, BD. Read it and weep.

And then entertain the lefties here by attacking the scholarship of The American Conservative.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/mar/10/00006/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously you have difficulty with reading comprehension. After numerous posts where you state going into Vietnam was about oil, you cite an article that talks about......Iraq. FAIL...

But keep trying for our comedic relief.

[houndawg]

Dude, it was debated all day, every day, throughout the nation, throughout the world, in the newspapers and on TV and on every college campus across the land! "Why are we in Vietnam" was the foremost issue of the day! Nothing else was even close! Where were you when this daily feature of American life was happening?

Er, how about you favor us with your explanation as to what Vietnam and Iraq were all about?

Three or four snarky posts later, and no references to any legitimate scholarship that backs your claim. That was to be expected.

BTW- I am pretty damn close to US-Vietnam diplomacy as we speak. Everyone is here looking at the oil, but the VAST majority of oil interests that are actually currently here are European.

If you get your news from somewhere other than MSNBC, you will also know that our diplomatic efforts in the South China Sea over the last year have been centered more in helping the ASEAN nations settle the disputes over the Spratley and Paracels between China and Vietnam (as well as a couple other nations). The disputes ARE in fact fueled by the oil reserves in the area,but suggesting that we intervened in SE Asia in the 1960's in order to secure oil reserves for ourselves (when even Indonesia has a more legitimate claim) is just making things up.

The old 'fighting for oil' mantra you and yours like to spout is just that: old, tired, and generally inaccurate.

Again, show me some legitimate scholarship behind your assertion.

Were you close to US-Vietnam diplomacy in the 1960s, CID? If so, then I will concede the point on Vietnam, (not Iraq). I get it that you are a diplomat on the scene in Ho Chi Minh City and I'm a peasant on a farm in the middle of nowhere. Still think I'm right on this one.

But while we're speaking of making things up: for you to suggest that that our government and oil companies give a tinker's damn about anybody having a "more legitimate claim" to that oil, or any oil, and by inference that we would respect such "more legitimate claims" is really making things up and total revisionism of our entire 20th century.

[houndawg]

Here's an article from the American Conservative, BD. Read it and weep.

And then entertain the lefties here by attacking the scholarship of The American Conservative.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/mar/10/00006/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously you have difficulty with reading comprehension. After numerous posts where you state going into Vietnam was about oil, you cite an article that talks about......Iraq. FAIL...

But keep trying for our comedic relief.

I said Iraq AND Vietnam.

So we're halfway there: you don't dispute that Iraq was about oil, correct?

Edit: And your cool with Bryce's scholarship, correct?

[houndawg]

I haven't heard the oil theory for Viet Nam either, but military, or in the case of Iran, covert intervention to control access to oil ain't much of a conspiracy theory. Bush tried to name the invasion of Iraq after it.

I don't dispute you, Kalm, and the control of natural resources has been a major factor in warfare since... the beginning of warfare.

However, quoted in the above post you can see where Houndawg laid a whopper of a turd and now he needs to back it up.

Diverting to saying things like "Well, we fought in the Middle East for oil!" is not going to cut it.

Thank you. Case closed.

[BDKJMU]

Obviously you have difficulty with reading comprehension. After numerous posts where you state going into Vietnam was about oil, you cite an article that talks about......Iraq. FAIL...

But keep trying for our comedic relief.

I said Iraq AND Vietnam.

So we're halfway there: you don't dispute that Iraq was about oil, correct?

Edit: And your cool with Bryce's scholarship, correct?

I absolutely dispute Iraq was about oil. Our intelligence agencies and virtually every intel agencies the US dealt with said Sadamm had WMDs and he continued to seek them. So did most conks and donks leaders, and so did Bush. He ordered troops in based on that apparently faulty intel. So Bush was wrong. Doesn't mean he lied, and doesn't mean Iraq was about oil, not when at the time the US got less less than 3% of its total consumption from Iraq, and never has gotten more than 4.5%.
http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archive ... omiraq.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sure Iraq has a shitload of oil and natural gas, and has auctioned off a ton of reserves, but US companies aren't getting squat:
http://moneymorning.com/2009/12/16/iraq-oil-companies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Iraqi oil would have never, and will never, pay for the cost of the war. Pretty much pokes a hole in the theory that the invasion of Iraq was about oil.