DescentBB

X2 what Flip said.

I have never seen so many people so misinformed and scared about Health-care in my life.

Let me get this straight now... its Ok for US citizens to have its Country invade another Country under false pretenses kill its leader and cap off the oil production to artificially raise oil prices, but its not OK to provide Health-care to its own Citizens?

Ohhh Noes! Health-care... that's horrible! You guys are yelling and kicking and screaming so much you cant even think straight anymore. Basic Health-care has been proven to increase a population's productivity, happiness, and extend life. Tell me is that so terrible?

Canuck wrote:Tell me is that so terrible?

Don't worry. They'll find something, I'm sure....

Canuck wrote:X2 what Flip said.

I have never seen so many people so misinformed and scared about Health-care in my life.

We understand "health care" but you seem to be equating it with bad legislation.

Canuck wrote:Let me get this straight now...

If you would get it straight you'd have to retract your comment.

Canuck wrote:Ok for US citizens to have its Country invade another Country under false pretenses kill its leader and cap off the oil production to artificially raise oil prices, but its not OK to provide Health-care to its own Citizens?...

No, it's not OK to use false pretenses to invade a country etc. BUT even if we accept your assessment of the oil-price-conspiracy as the motive doesn't your ethical rule apply equally to using false pretenses of "providing health care" to create a humongous bureaucracy/government middleman and voter dependency, turning the countries healthcare system, one of the worlds best systems, into a mismanaged government run fiasco without really providing or improving care?!?

All they are offering is to force their way into the health care insurance business, mandating coverage, imposing jail terms and financial burdens as well as massive tax increases to pay for the added costs of their intrusion into the process!!

Canuck wrote:... kill its leader ...

Saddam Hussein was executed by the Iraqis, not the US,

The execution of Saddam Hussein took place on December 30, 2006. He was sentenced to death by hanging, after being found guilty and convicted of crimes against humanity by the Iraqi Special Tribunal for the murder of 148 Iraqi Shi'ites in the town of Dujail in 1982, in retaliation for an assassination attempt against him.[1]

from here.

Canuck wrote:...and cap off the oil production to artificially raise oil prices...

got any evidence for this conspiracy assertion?

Ok they went from 5 million barrels a day to 336,000 after the war. Now they are up to 1.8 million barrels a day and predicting 6 million soon... all controlled by American companies by the way. Contracts with Russia and other Nations were torn up.
Everyone else in the World knows the real reason Bush invaded Iraq... even kids. Propaganda really does work.

Sadam was executed by a puppet government setup by US forces. He threatened to flood the market with oil and lower prices. 911 was used as an excuse to move into Iraq... remember weapons of mass destruction? The American people were lied to and you still believe the lie defending it vehemently.

Pull your head out of your butt... you aren't going to get arrested for not having health care and there aren't going to be \"Death Panels\" deciding who lives and dies. Mind you Private Health Care seems to do a really great job of denying people coverage they paid for anyway so in a way you already have \"Death panels\"... just privatized. Your Health care System is definitely NOT the greatest system in the World it is corrupt, broken, and needs fixing.... Cuba whips your butt with many European nations close behind. Again proof positive propaganda works.

Team America... F--- Ya!

WOW way to take a debate about Healthcare and Turn in to an America sucks thread. Good Job Canuck

CUDA wrote:WOW way to take a debate about Healthcare and Turn in to an America sucks thread. Good Job Canuck

Yes stop immediately Canuck.

Canuck, Are you sure about those oil production figures?

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm shows a lot of information about oil history. On that same page you'll find a graph of the Iraq oil production history. You'll find there was a huge drop in production at the Iran/Iraq war (which wasn't the American's doing) and eventually production came back up. You'll also see a drop when US Forces went in to hunt down Saddam, but you'll also see that the production levels came right back up to nearly the same levels it was before that.

Here's the graph I'm referring to: http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/PAPRPIQ.gif

If you're going to go looking for conspiracy crap, please get your facts straight first.

--- yup, a bit off topic now. ---

Will Robinson wrote:...turning the countries healthcare system, one of the worlds best systems, into a mismanaged government run fiasco without really providing or improving care?!?...

I'm sorry, what country are you talking about? Because it simply can't be the US which has one of the worst health care systems among developed nations in the whole world...

I generally agree it will not improve under more government control, however I also am absolutely confident that in the absence of more government control it will continue to spiral out of control at an ever accelerating rate. The whole system is fatally flawed and corrupt in its very core values. Government control is a band-aid solution that won't last, the system is on a course for collapse and nothing being proposed in Washington will alter that course. They can only slow it down, but I have total confidence that it will get much much worse before it ever gets better. The system is completely morally bankrupt, failure is the only option.

Krom attempts to create a Moebius thread.

(teh health care discussion is in the other thread this one was split from)

Sniper wrote:

ROFL

Canuck wrote:Ok they went from 5 million barrels a day to 336,000 after the war. Now they are up to 1.8 million barrels a day and predicting 6 million soon... all controlled by American companies by the way. Contracts with Russia and other Nations were torn up.
Everyone else in the World knows the real reason Bush invaded Iraq... even kids. Propaganda really does work.

Not sure where those production numbers came from. The numbers for Iraq from the EIA are that Iraq had a maximum production (1980-2008 period) in 1989 of nearly 3 mbpd; in 1991 (Iran-Iraq war) it fell to about 0.3 mbpd; from 2003 to 2008 production increased from about 1.3 mbpd to about 2.4 mbpd. Iraq has huge reserves, but a much more limited capacity to produce them, due in no small part to Saddam’s failure to invest in those means of production.


Iraq is making plenty of money off of their oil production. Royal Dutch Shell and BP, as well as American firms, are among those companies operating in Iraq. For perspective, see here.

Iraqi officials have estimated that based on crude oil at $50 per barrel, the companies could earn around $16 billion in total while Iraq would bring in over $1.7 trillion.

Canuck wrote: Sadam was executed by a puppet government setup by US forces.

I think the Shi’a in Iraq would take issue with that statement. I think their desire for vengeance was probably more influential that any directives from their purported puppet-masters in Washington.

Canuck wrote: He threatened to flood the market with oil and lower prices.

Saddam made lots of threats; remember how he was going to bring forth the “mother of all battles”? I seriously doubt that Iraq had the capability to control oil prices to that magnitude. Through the 1990’s Iraq’s share of just OPEC production varied between about 12-15%. http://www.wtrg.com/opecshare.html And over the same time period, all of OPEC’s share of the world oil market was between about 30-40%.

Canuck wrote: 911 was used as an excuse to move into Iraq... remember weapons of mass destruction? The American people were lied to and you still believe the lie defending it vehemently.

Not so much. I haven’t said one thing here to defend Bush. I have asked that you support your contention of a conspiracy, and instead I received a diatribe.

Ok, I guess.

OK lets see who the oil belongs to now... OH the original Companies Saddam kicked out years back. Imagine that.

http://www.alternet.org/world/88933

The invaluable Robert Rapier’s R-Squared blog is one of the places I like to go to read up on the energy industry. I’m not surprised at all that Robert has some recent posts that are germane to this discussion.

In We want energy independence (but aren’t so crazy about paying for it), where one of his comments related to the survey results he’s discussing was

The level of energy knowledge is abysmal. To me, this is the biggest obstacle in adhering to a long-term, coherent energy policy. 39% of respondents couldn't name a fossil fuel. A majority - 51% - couldn't name an alternative energy source. 65% thought that most of our oil imports come from the Middle East. The report sums up the problem quite well: Without certain facts, the public can’t judge what’s realistic and what’s not, and that’s bound to hamper constructive decision making. I would add that it isn't just the public; it extends to the politicians that we elected.

Not to mention that this general lack of knowledge leaves plenty of room for politicians (of ALL political persuasions) to demagogue on the issue of oil, gas and energy policy.
(hint: don’t hesitate to read the comments also at R-Squared posts; frequently illuminating)



Then there’s this post, where Robert takes on a Center for American Progress report (see links at R-Squared) that manipulates the numbers to misrepresent the true nature of what’s going on in the industry.

Yeah, websites and bloggers are also not exempt from attempting to grandstand in front of this general public lack of knowledge. I haven’t done a scientific survey of Alternet, but some of the search results I’ve seen sound a lot like the overheated rhetoric one can find over at Oil Watchdog. Have a gander over here where Rapier addresses numerous instances of this kind of false, misleading and otherwise shoddy analysis.



Now (at last, they say), let’s address Canuck’s last post. To further dispel the notion that it’s only US companies participating in Iraq, see this article. Apart from your misconceptions about who is involved, you further labor under the false idea that the (foreign) oil companies own the oil in the countries where they operate. The story in Iraq is more like this

A half dozen major international oil companies are close to deals with Iraq, on the heels of BP and the Chinese National Petroleum Corp., which are one step away from receiving the first new oil contract issued by Baghdad – for the largest oil field in the country.
The deals are part of the Iraqi Oil Ministry effort to bring foreign capital, expertise and technology to dramatically boost production in the underachieving yet third largest oil reserves in the world. Iraq holds 115 billion barrels of proven reserves but produces just around 2.4 million barrels per day (bpd).

Iraq’s prime minister and oil minister are in Washington, D.C., right now courting investment at an investment conference organized by Iraq’s National Investment Commission, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Iraq, among others, brings in foreign companies because they can provide the expertise and resources to pull the oil out of the ground so that it can be sold. Sure, the oil companies make money from their investments, but the vast majority of the revenue goes to the Iraqi government.



Finally, as an example of what can go wrong when their country’s oil industry gets mismanaged, I submit the case of the socialist wunderkind Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, wherein the leader of the great Bolivarian revolution is vying for “honors” with Robert Mugabe to see who can ruin a country the fastest.



Robert recently posted a review of this book, “Oil on the Brain”, saying

As one might expect, Margonelli emerged from her experience with a radically different view of how the oil industry works. I have to agree with Paul Sankey's assessment that it does provide great insight into the industry, from a very basic starting point and with a balanced view. As one reviewer pointed out, it could have been titled \"The Petro-economy for Dummies\", which is to say it is a book that is easily understood by those with zero knowledge of the industry. This book would be on my short list of books to recommend to people who want to know what the industry is really like.

Sounds like an interesting read to me.

Believe what you want, it's your prerogative to turn a blind eye to whatever suits your fancy but the rest of the World doesn't. I'm pretty sure there are other people on this planet that side with some of my views and others that don't. That's OK for me and I don't need to get into a battle of Internet links and pages of posts that will never change my mind. If you guys want to really stop terrorism you'd be back in Afghanistan two years back when the Canadians were begging for more help. Since it was a great wheat year and bad for poppies it doesn't pay to get back in... at least for the CIA.

If you haven't heard yet our own troops are begging for help from our own government. Besides we have been in that country since October 7, 2001 when US military's Operation Enduring Freedom started.

Troops in Afghanistan (edit: May be more by now.)

United States - 68,000
United Kingdom - 9,500
Germany - 4,245
France - 3,070
Canada - 2,830
Italy - 2,795
Netherlands - 2,160
Poland - 2,035
Australia - 1,550
Spain - 1,000
Romania - 990
Turkey - 820
Denmark - 750
Norway - 600
Belgium - 510
Sweden - 500
Bulgaria - 460
Czech Republic - 340
Croatia - 325
Hungary - 310

Maybe your country should have sent more troops. Seems to me we were more committed than your country Now our general is ask for 45,000 more troops he isn't going to get those either.

Insurrectionist wrote: Maybe your country should have sent more troops

or maybe we were smart enough not to get involved in a ridiculous for-profit war.

...

The Iraq commitments (based on the data in Insurrectionist's post)...

Shows just how much the U.S. has committed to making a difference over there ... and how little EVERYONE else has done.

... and also why the U.S. gets so much flak over how things go over there.

Except those numbers are from Afghanistan…

Canuck wrote:If you guys want to really stop terrorism you'd be back in Afghanistan two years back when the Canadians were begging for more help.

Insurrectionist wrote:Besides we have been in that country since October 7, 2001 when US military's Operation Enduring Freedom started.

Hence those numbers.

In 2006 we were deployed as part of an ISAF / NATO force under British Command. They were not there as as offensive force and were therefore were not equipped as such. The US was pulling forces and put them where? Katrina?

*I personally know several people that have gone to Afghanistan more than 5 times... despite our numbers. Perhaps you should be over there as well as Bettina.

Spidey wrote:Except those numbers are from Afghanistan…

Yup, my mistake. Either way, the ratio is very similar at both Afghanistan and Iraq (sadly).

Canuck wrote:Believe what you want, it's your prerogative to turn a blind eye to whatever suits your fancy but the rest of the World doesn't. I'm pretty sure there are other people on this planet that side with some of my views and others that don't. That's OK for me and I don't need to get into a battle of Internet links and pages of posts that will never change my mind.

This is one of the most forlorn and disappointing responses I've seen in a while. Ok, so presenting information that disputes your contentions is me turning a blind eye? And facts disputing your contentions will never change your mind?

ok. Suit yourself.

Just telling you what it is Homes. Can you not respect that? I can.

.

Canuck wrote:Just telling you what it is Homes. Can you not respect that? I can.

Go for it. Like I said, suit yourself.

dissent wrote:

Canuck wrote:Believe what you want, it's your prerogative to turn a blind eye to whatever suits your fancy but the rest of the World doesn't. I'm pretty sure there are other people on this planet that side with some of my views and others that don't. That's OK for me and I don't need to get into a battle of Internet links and pages of posts that will never change my mind.

This is one of the most forlorn and disappointing responses I've seen in a while. Ok, so presenting information that disputes your contentions is me turning a blind eye? And facts disputing your contentions will never change your mind?

ok. Suit yourself.

I generally interpret a response like Canuck's as a de facto admission of defeat. "Stop arguing, I'm not listening, I'll respect your opinion if you respect mine" is a hasty retreat from the battlefield of ideas if I ever saw one.

Defeat? You think the way you want... I don't need to prove anything to you or anyone else. I am stating facts as I see them. People will whip up Internet \"proof\" until the cows come home, and really are against anything that paints the great old USA in any negative light and refuse to believe anything negative.