While listening to this morning's broadcast I heard the host & his guest both say that in regards to Iraq we should have just gone in & taken the oil fields and then we wouldn't have the insane gas prices we have today.
I think it is important to point out that we did indeed send troops to take over the oil fields. That is the VERY FIRST THING THAT WAS DONE. We are being told by the msm that oil production from these fields is slow due to sabbotage of pipelines & equipment by terrorists. I must also point out that these oil fields are not controlled by the US government. The control of these oil fields have been given/sold to oil companies, ie. Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, BP et al. There will be no reduction in gasoline prices due to US forces taking control of Iraqi oil fields. There will be no Uncle Sam gas stations selling petrol at $1.00 a gallon.
As a long time employee in the petroleum industry, I can assure you that gasoline prices will continue to climb & petroleum companies will continue to post world record profits.
I thought it was important to point out to the BTM staff that by saying things on the air like "We should have just gone in there & taken over the oil fields, then we wouldn't have these high gas prices" You are spreading disinformation. I'm sure that this was unintentional. I'm ABSOLUTELY sure. However by broadcasting these sentiments on your network you are selling short your audience.
To Recap: We DID take over the oil fields - We DID hand over control of Iraqi oilfilds to major petroleum corporations - There have been NO REDUCTIONS in petroleum prices - Nor will there be.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 474 reads
to what was said --- even though it was said in jest
It reveals a new facet of globalism - which is that while our government has been plundering other nations for centuries they used to share the spoils with American citizens--- this partially is what led to the high standard living in America (along with many other factors to be sure)
Under globalism, the spoils are no longer shared with American citizens, being a citizen of any particlar nation is losing much of its significance
The ultra wealthy of many nations are working together so that they no longer have to share the spoils with any one but themselves
If the Iraq war brought us $1 gas it might actually be popular-- certainly more popular
so much sense :)
When Dean showed up yesterday and actually responded (in general) to my comments (sort of)
I felt like a kid in a pie fight when the adults come home
Oh well, I had fun
If I ever run for office I will deny everything
The host you heard was me Kurt Wallace of Wake Up America Show.
First I want to say I thanks for listening. I encourage you to call me live on the show and we can discuss any thoughts you have in an open forum so that we have "clarity" about the topics. You made some great points to the reality of what happened with our invasion of Iraq and oil and could have contributed well to discussing those points.
Hopefully, I can clear up the misunderstanding about the 2nd half of the show today and what I actually said with regard to Iraq...since I enjoy sarcasm I started off with several gallons of the high test stuff I said:
"If we (meaning the Bush Administration and the sellout Congress) are going to colonize Iraq and be an Imperial Nation lets stop messing around and just act like one and make the Iraq country part of us (make it a US State) tax them to the hilt and spred the wealth!"
Rest assured those who have listened to my show before know that I am completely against the War in Iraq and demand immediately withdrawal, and today, I was taking our illegal invasion to an extreme-sarcasm (not everyones cup of tea I realize).
Today's attempted sarcasm explained: the idea of going into Iraq with the absurd notion presented at one time by the neocons of US Citizens reaping oil benifits of Iraq takeover as laughable, yet many Americans believed that would happen, literally. I was calling out the NeoCons (Cheney) and anyone who would entertain that as a credible idea. I like to make fun of bad ideas.
I was actually concerned that I might get attention for what I said about McCain being a Facist warmonering corporate whore ect. ect.
Where Rick Williams' show centers around the economy. My show centers around stopping the war NOW!! Which is why I do the interviews on my show with the soldiers from www.couragetoresist.com.
The quote here "we should have just gone in & taken the oil fields and then we wouldn't have the insane gas prices we have today." was a misquote and took the discussion out of context and in a different direction. I dont talk about oil much if at all unless its Veggie Oil for cars, I dont see much point in it really as the only thing that will stop the war at this point is the troops themselves.
My focus was about the lives of our military which has always been my number one concern. As I stated today "the troops are committing SUICIDE at a rate of 120 per WEEK after serving in Iraq." These estimates demonstrate we have lost over 40,000 troops to PTSD suicide.
My second relevant Iraq war point is the deep economic reason we invaded Iraq "Dollarocracy" not just oil. Which is what Pat Gorman and I discuss every week and which is why we brought up the fact that Iran has declared the dollar a worthless piece of paper and has begun accepting only Euros and Yen for oil. When I asked Pat about our possible war with Iran (not over oil but over the dollar for oil) he said "I hope we don't go to war with Iran" which I agreed. Because of the troops not the price of oil!!
It sparks my pistons that oil got more torque from my show today than the suffering of our troops or "Dollarocracy" ...I sometimes blow a headgasket when I hear these soldiers stories and hope you will too...
I will be discussing Army PFC Ryan Jackson's Courtmartial scheduled for May 30th and The First Iraq War veteran to face deportation from exile in Canada Corey Glass tomorrow morning 9am eastern the call in number is 727-857-3286 or toll free 800-657-4135
Obviously it struck me the wrong way. I was really enjoying the show up to that point. If I misquoted you I'm sorry, I know your guest said something similar, perhaps he said that which I stated above, & purhaps I just didn't hear it right. My apologies. Keep up the good work.
BTW - I wasn't bothered at all that you said that McCain was a Facist warmonering corporate whore. :)
first you propose that personal insults you don't approve of (http://breakthematrix.com/node/8525#comment-5023). then in the next breath (http://breakthematrix.com/node/8525#comment-5024) you claim
"BTW - I wasn't bothered at all that you said that McCain was a Facist warmonering corporate whore. :)"
so when someone goes off at you, it's in bad taste. when someone else goes off at another person, you're not bothered by it.
i suggest you apply your morals to everyone equally. just a suggestion.
we must refer to the "Break the Matrix Code of Conduct Personal Handbook" (a work in progress)
Under the section entitled "Insults, sarcasms and other nefarious language"
Paragraph two will clearly state that "any language directed towards "war mongering neocon scum" is fully acceptable without limitation"
:)
all jokes aside, have you noticed how some members whine at every opportunity they get about how their feelings were hurt? as if that wasn't bad enough, this guy (hopeflow) here is being a hypocrite on the same page. he didn't even have the decency of contradicting himself in two separate topics. that's just too much.
I heard the broadcast and to me, it sounded "Don Imusesque." The tone of their discussion was like, "If we're going to be an imperial country, 'WE' should be profiting from lower gas prices" like that would be an acceptable proposition for the country. It was said facetiously but it wasn't really funny. And I'm not saying they need to have bleeding heart liberals as guests all the time, but BTM needs to stay consistent. This freedom movement is a humanity and people's movement as much as it is an American movement, and it should leave preconceived superiorities behind.
Danny Gibbs
Arcata, CA
...but the reasons for the increasing price of gas are many and varied. Certainly increased demand is a major factor. China and India having been steadily increasing their consumption of petroleum for years. This is a direct result of globalization as their economies have grown while those in the West have weakened.
Refining capacity in the U.S. has been kept deliberately low. This is because, under the guise of environmentalism, investment in new refinery capacity in the U.S. has been stagnant for the past 35 years or so. Existing refineries are aging and must be routinely shut down for maintenance. These shutdowns are further exacerbated by government regulation requiring refineries to reformulate gasoline seasonally to control emissions. Diesel fuel formulations are similarly regulated.
The result of government regulations and, with the possible collusion of the refiners themselves, is that the U.S. imports more refined petroleum products than we produce at home. Instead of shipping crude to our shores, we are shipping refined petroleum products, at a higher net cost than if we were refining them here at home (not to mention the refinery jobs that are now overseas instead of here at home).
Our Chief Decider filling the strategic petroleum reserve to the tune of 70,000 barrels a month for the past 7 1/2 years doesn't help either. Neither does shipping the entire production of Alaska's North Slope oil fields, to Japan, to stabilize their fuel prices, help.
Nor does threatening war with Syria and Iran help. It is often written that we pay a "war premium" of between 15 to 20% just based on G.W.'s making war in Iraq and his threats of war with Iran.
Most importantly, the Federal Reserve flooding the market with new dollars coupled with the Federal government spending these new dollars like the proverbial drunken sailor, makes all imports more expensive as the value of the dollar drops. As previously mentioned, we import a lot of refined gas.
Did I mention that the U.S. military consumes vast amounts of fuel as it wages global war on drugs and terror? And pays top dollar for it too. How much less would fuel cost us if we didn't have to compete with the U.S. government for limited stocks of gasoline, diesel fuel and jetA (kerosene)?
Do we read about that in the MSM? We do read about the Senators calling the oil execs before them to explain whats going on. Do we ever hear the real answers? No because the Senators know the answers. Its all a big charade to make us sheep think they are doing something to provide relief.
To add insult to injury we have the ethanol fiasco making everything worse! We turn an energy intensive crop (corn) and turn it into a biofuel for a net gain of less than 15%, all the while subsidizing an industry that couldn't stand on its own in a free market. So we pay twice for ethanol and achieve no positive net result.
I do not work in the petroleum industry and if I'm factually incorrect on the above information please feel free to add any corrections.
You have been accurate in your assessment. My 2 main points however were that it is not in BTM's best interests to have it's hosts broadcast provable fallacies, & as long as oil companies are posting "world record" profits quarter after quarter after quarter, then we as consumers are being ripped off. Your assessment was excellent.
I agree with you that the comments, as presented here, were unwise. My response was more in the line of an expression of frustration. It is hard to not "shout from the mountaintop" the means by which the corporatist State apparatchiks bleed us dry while they prosper. Thanks again for validating my words.
I believe they were being facetious.
Facetious - 1: Jocular in an often clumsy or inappropriate manner. 2: Characterized by pleasantry or levity.
Hey Ken - this site is fortunate to have you. You consistently provide quality posts. This time, however you have provided a non-sequitur.
non-sequitur - 2: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything previously said.
I heard the broadcast this morning. When they said; I would have been behind this if they had just rolled in there & taken over the oil fields, then maybe gas prices wouldn't be so bad, I may have sensed jocularity, but I did not sense sarcasm. It sounded to me as though they meant it when they said it. I don't hold it against anyone for losing track of events in Iraq or not understanding how things work in the petroleum industry. I do think that this is more than just a "little mistake" when it is broadcast by a fledgling media company. We need to build credibility with our potential audience. So when one of our hosts & his guest speak confirmed falsehoods "If we had just rolled in there & took control of the oil fields" This implies that we did NOT take control of the oil fields, when in fact it was the very first thing accomplished by our military. "Then maybe gas prices wouldn't be so bad" another falsehood but this is simply a misunderstanding of the workings of the oil industry.
Allow me to share a personal experience from the wonderful world of petroleum. I was fortunate enough to spend an afternoon with an individual from my company who inspects off shore oil rigs. He related to me a day in which he visited several off sore drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Several of these platforms were in brand new condition yet were "capped", which means they were not being used, they were unmanned & inactive. My co-worker asked why these platforms which were over tremendous oil reserves were not being used to supply more oil to consumers. The official from the oil company said simply; "That would increase the availability of crude oil, which would drive down the price."
Gasoline prices are not affected by troops or our government. Oil prices ultimately are set by petroleum companies. Yes, there are many factors, price of crude (largely affected by commodities speculators), transportation costs, genuinely small amounts of refineries, etc. But as long as these oil companies are posting record profits, you don't have to look any further than the oil companies. Yes, they are "for profit" organizations & as such owe it to their share holders to return competitive profits. But as long as they keep posting "world record" profits, quarter after quarter, then we are being screwed by these oil companies.
In conclusion it is of utmost importance that as a fledgling alternative media source BTM provides accurate information to its customers. If in fact the host & his guest were being either facetious or sarcastic, they should have made that clear. Providing false information (even unintentionally as I'm certain it was) in regards to events of such tremendous importance like Iraq & the ever increasing price of fuel, is just not the way to go.
I am disturbed to find that anyone subscribing to the freedom movement would perpetuate the idea that the oil companies are "screwing us" by running their businesses profitably. They certainly have no obligation to drill oil for our convenience, nor to sell one barrel to us or to refineries. They are entitled to as much profit as they can make, and anyone who thinks they can do it better can start their own oil company and compete with them, or can refuse to buy their products. That's they way freedom works - apparently easy to forget when it becomes inconvenient.
That being said, the oil companies are making about a 10% profit - which is by no means unreasonable or even noteworthy. In an attempt to find a scapegoat for problems we ultimately create ourselves (through our elected officials), news outlets are quick to publish headlines that say "record profits for oil companies." Of course, they are record profits measured nominally (in total dollars). I doubt examination would find that they are record profit percentages. The newspaper never says "Record $42 billion profit on $420 billion in revenue." They just tell you "$42 billion" and everyone yells "that's robbery!" No, what will be robbery will be taxing their profits to give everyone a gas holiday - and we will be robbing them.
Like everything else, oil company profits are going up AS MEASURED IN US DOLLARS. However (and I haven't researched this), I suspect that their profits in terms of percentage of revenue are largely the same. In any case, no one has the right to question their profit margins, their decisions about how much oil to sell, or the price they charge. You do have the right not to buy their products.
Let's remember why we're here. This is a perfect illustration of what I said in other posts about "our dark secret." If we won't even back a company making a reasonable profit, how much resolve will we have when it is time to say goodbye to Medicare, Social Security, etc.?
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Rather than address specifics, you have answered with sweeping generalizations.
“ ‘screwing us’ by running their businesses profitably.“ No body said any such thing. I said: Yes, they are "for profit" organizations & as such owe it to their share holders to return competitive profits. But as long as they keep posting "world record" profits, quarter after quarter, then we are being screwed by these oil companies.
“They are entitled to as much profit as they can make, and anyone who thinks they can do it better can start their own oil company and compete with them, or can refuse to buy their products.”
Now, now you know as well as I that the average Joe can’t just go out & start their own oil company, let alone compete with the very small & protected group of major oil corporations. I can’t refuse to buy their products, not if I want to keep earning a pay check. There are no commercially available automobiles that run without some petroleum. The bus line & trains do not go to the places I work.
“The oil companies are making about a 10% profit” Do you know this? Just asking.
“No, what will be robbery will be taxing their profits to give everyone a gas holiday - and we will be robbing them.”
I never advocated taxing their profits. I’m not a “big government” guy.
“You do have the right not to buy their products”
Yes I have the right. However in the real world I need to get to work, so I need a car, so I need to buy gas, and there are only a small amount of companies which sell gasoline.
“This is a perfect illustration of what I said in other posts about "our dark secret." If we won't even back a company making a reasonable profit, how much resolve will we have when it is time to say goodbye to Medicare, Social Security, etc.?”
I’m not sure what you mean by “Our Dark Secret”. I have no issue what so ever regarding companies making reasonable profits. That’s what keeps America going. I think our difference lies in what is “reasonable”. I’m not sure I follow your line of reasoning in regards to linking “company making a reasonable profit” & “say goodbye to Medicare, Social Security”. You kind of lost me there. Of course we can do both.
“They are entitled to as much profit as they can make” This is all well & good in theory, but let’s apply this theory to a real life scenario.
Robert Hirsch, Management Information Services Senior Energy Advisor, gave a dire warning about the potential future of gas prices on CNBC’s May 20 “Squawk Box”. $12 for a gallon of gas is “inevitable.”
” “[T]he prices that we’re paying at the pump today are, I think, going to be ‘the good old days,’ because others who watch this very closely forecast that we’re going to be hitting $12 and $15 per gallon,” Hirsch said.
Entire article here: http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080521145247.aspx
At these prices it would cost $120 - $150 to fill a tiny 10 gallon gas tank. If we look around us today we see truck drivers protesting in the streets over $5 a gallon diesel fuel. The sharp increase in fuel costs have caused the inflation of the price of everything, because all goods are transported by ship, train or truck. All of which use diesel fuel. If we are all straining under current fuel prices & their domino effect, what will life be like for the average American when fuel prices hit the “inevitable” price of $12 a gallon?
Is this what this revolution is really “all about”? Insuring maximum profit to the privileged few at tremendous expense to the honest hard working masses? It has been said that “revolution is simply the act of overthrowing one brutal regime to insert another” I was hoping that ours would be different.
I would reply, but your argument makes my point.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
?
you know how to use a dictionary...
I stick to my response... I was listening to the show
oh yeah
facetious
2 : meant to be humorous or funny : not serious
care to try again?
"Wow you know how to use a dictionary"
Ken I've never insulted you. In fact I complimented you in that post. I just didn't find the remarks on the show this morning amusing. I don't take either the war(s) or the current cost of gasoline lightly. I may not have "gotten it" but please let's be more respectful. You have my respect, you don't have to respect me, but please let's not sink to personal insults.
It was just my lame attempt at sarcasm cause I thought it was obvious they were joking. I must admit I did sense a bit of sarcasm in your response, cause I often joke. That was my mistake, this is something that happens often when you take out the personal interaction in conversation.
I understand, when someone such as yourself that has a close and personal relation to the subject, they may find it harder to find the humor in a of the cuff comment.
Kurt is new at this so lets give him a break. He is doing a great job for a newbie and has been having some excellent guests.
No harm - no foul. It is true that printed words take out the subtle inlections of speach and facial expression.
I will define words now and then just so the reader can see where I am coming from, I never realized it could offend people. I simply do it because these days words have meanings which are understood differently to different people. Just Google something with define: X and you will get several different, yet similar meanings. To make my point most clear, there are times when I will choose the definition which most clearly defines my point and direction of my meaning. I don't do it to be a sassy pants, I just do it so it is easier to understand my thought process. This way no one can translate my statement incorrectly. I guess they just translate my intentions incorrectly then. Maybe next time I do that I will add a brief explanation as to why I am using a definition. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
I understand Hope's point better now and I wouldn't have caught the humor either. It is only constructive criticism for the new guy, I don't think it was personal. Most artists or performers expect it.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire
To quote Bartles & James "Thank you for your support!"