Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
If the goal was to "have a stranglehold" on the oil resources of the world, why did we not maintain control over Kuwait's oil? We didn't receive any special pricing, any control, or any leverage over it.
|
Because I truly believe that presidents (of many countries, not just the US) have absolutely no fore-sight or are more interested in short-term goals. Bush sr. did indeed have only the short-term interest that keeping the oil reserves into several different governments is the best option.*
The oil companies however do have interests in the long-term energy market. They know oil reserves are running out, and having control over as many reserves as possible promises them unbelievable riches when the commodity becomes scarce. Plus (in the short-term) controlling your own reserves (mind you: Iraq is government-wise just another US state at this point) is bound to be cheaper than to buy per barrel from Saudi Arabia.
I'd like to see a chart that shows Bush's campaign contributions for his 2000 election. I'll bet ya there are substantial contributions from the Defense (or is that Offense) and Oil industries. I've said all along that going to war with Afghanistan (somewhat) and Iraq (mainly) was just keeping is campaign promises to his contributors.
I believe that Bush jr. is a lot more under influence of Corporate America than Bush Sr. (But my interests and opinions in politics have changed a lot in that time, so it might be my changed perception).
* The phrase that came to mind here was: "divide and conquer" It may seem rash during a war, but the phrase is applicable if you interpret it to say: It is easier to negotiate oil prices when you have several possible parties to negotiate with. If one party has more than a fair share of the demanded resources than it becomes a dangerous entity as it could make and break you.
Edit: to respond to the original question:
Quote:
|
If the war was for oil, why am I paying $2 for a gallon of regular?
|
You guys in the US have it good. In the Netherlands (which does have reasonably
absurd gas prices) we pay 1.227 euros per liter.
That would equal ( 1 gallon = 3.78 liters) to 4.64 euro/gallon.
a reasonable exchange rate is 1 euro = 1 USdollar.
So there...
(btw, current exchange rates would make that $5.69 /gallon)