GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Random Sunday Morning Thought

by

If the purpose of going into Iraq was to “control their oil”…. why are our gas prices over $2.50 a gallon three years later? Do we not “control their oil” now?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  1. You forget, Bush is stupid and our military is really a terrorist outfit. Bush can’t even get his imperialism right. Vote Dem in ’06 and all will be resolved.

  5. This looks like fun? Can I try?

    Maybe because BUSHCO is a DRAFT-DODGING CHICKENHAWK and his puppet-master Cheney is an ALCOHOLIC WHO SHOOTS PEOPLE IN THE FACE and then doesn’t tell David Gregory and Laura Bush MURDERED HER BOYFRIEND WITH A CAR just like DADDYBUSH MURDERED JFK. Also, BUSCO IS WIRETAPPING OUR BK DRIVE-THRU ORDERS! Also, the Reason oil is expensive is because BUSH and HITLERBURTON are hoarding it to fuel the ovens at the CONCENTRATION CAMPS where LGBTPWAPZCDPABDSMMAOSD’s will be EXTERMINATED!

    (I feel I should add a South Park subtitle to the above: “This is what Moonbats Actually Believe.”)

  8. Good one sassy! Thanks are due the poster for inadvertently highlighting just how stupid and incompetent Bushco has been in waging this war. It’s instructive to look back three years and see what the warmongers were saying then

    http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2842

    I especially liked Bush Buttboy Fred Barnes’ comment:

    “The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a coalition, getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment and winning. And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but it is not as hard as winning a war.”

    Now we are told that Bush plans to have our troops in Iraq AT LEAST through January 2009. Well, I think he’s wrong again. The American people won’t put up with it. I expect that within a year Bush will declare victory, pull out and let the Iraqis have at it.

  9. Ian here is a quote from a liberal who actually made sense Winston Churchill “never never never give up”………I guess that if a liberal were president right now the plan to combat terrorism would be what……….give them a knife say “i am an infidel please cut my head off”… “praise allah”?

  11. Yes – BushItlerCheneyBurton are SO DANGEROUSLY INCOMPETENT that they CAN’T EVEN STEAL OIL THE WORLD’S OIL right!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go Ian! Tell TRUTH TO POWER!!!

    Actually, I love what Victor Davis Hanson said about all this the other day. (Loose paraphrase) – We haven’t had another 9-11 attack on our mainland; al Qaeda terrorists (which, as an aisde, were in Iraq BEFORE 2003 / the war) are steadily being killed and captured; 50 million Muslims have been liberated from two of history’s worst tyrannies, and are now finally being forced to learn the rudiments of democracy and that they shouldn’t expect to be able to kill each other to solve their countries’ problems… that’s “incompetence”???

    Also paraphrasing VDH: War is always a bad choice. You go to war when (and because) you are stuck between a bad choice and a worse choice. Making the bad choice, yes, you must then pay an ongoing heavy price for it. But you avoided the much worse choice – that’s the point.

    Ian, think hard about what that “much worse choice” might have been here. I know for a fact that even you moonbats can do it, if only you apply yourself long and hard enough. Peace out.

  12. Wow…the dingbats are out today…liberals’ approach to regime change and fighting terrorism…talk it up big when you are in office but ignore action at all costs…sorta like the UN resolutions…spineless..

  13. #9: Well, when the Germans started bombing London, Churchill didn’t invade Bolivia. Today, of course, the guy that ACTUALLY masterminded the WTC and Pentagon attacks is still free and the remnants of the Taliban regime that sheltered him have regrouped and reasserted sufficient power in so many parts of Afghanistan that the elected President is commonly referred to as the mayor of Kabul since that is the extent of his power. Further evidence of his weakness is his silence regarding the possible death sentence for that Christian on trial. You do know of course that that poor guy is going to be killed even if the government sets him free. Ah the joys of demcracy!

    Another point: you make the egregious error of conflating the “War on Terror” with the invasion of Iraq. Three years ago the two had virtually nothing to do with each other. Now, of course they do. Unfortunately, the US is in a bind – is it worse to stay and have our military and treasury ground down in an indefinite occupation or do we risk pulling out and hoping that the Iraqis can fend for themselves if they are forced to? My belief is that the former is no longer a viable option with an impatient American public about to throw up its collective hands and demand a withdrawal. In either case, America will have been dramatically weakened compared to its position in January 2003. And the responsibility for that will rest entirely with Bushco and the Rubber Stamp Republicans who have enabled such disastrous policies.

  14. a. I never bought that left wing meme.

    b. Even if it was true, and it isn’t, considering how they screwed up every other aspect of the post-war planning (no flowers at our feet, more than a year to stabilize the region, as if the supremely more competent Bush I administration didn’t figure that out) I wouldn’t be surprised if that was yet another failed prediction.

    c. There will be a country which we will probably have to invade shortly to secure the world oil supply, even though we don’t get any of our oil from there–Iran. They have threatened to use oil as a weapon, both by shutting down their own production and denying access to oil terminals in the region. I don’t think we, or the rest of the world, will tolerate that for too long, nor should we.

  15. 9: Well, when the Germans started bombing London, Churchill didn’t invade Bolivia.

    Nope they invaded Africa, and then we invaded France before we invaded Germany.

  16. We haven’t had another 9-11 attack on our mainland;

    What was the timing between the first and second world trade center bombings? I’ll give you a hint, more than five years. That was managed despite what you guys consider to be the gross incompetentce fo the Clinton Administration during a period when domestic terrorism wasn’t at the forefront of people’s minds.

    l Qaeda terrorists (which, as an aisde, were in Iraq BEFORE 2003 / the war) are steadily being killed and captured;

    Yes, the Iraqi intelligence service memo to Saddam thought there was a clear indication that al Qaeda may be in the conutry. Saddam was definitely in direct alliances with OBL and his cells in Iraq if his intelligence service thought that the possibility of their existence was news worthy. In a shocking memo to President Bush, the U.S. military learned that international military organizations have taken part in Red Flag training exercises in Nevada…oh yeah we invited them. It is good that we are capturing more and more of their leaders. It’s just unfortunate we’ve provided al Qaeda a terrific training ground for how the U.S. military responds to urban warefare and emergency response.

    50 million Muslims have been liberated from two of history’s worst tyrannies

    Worst tyrannies? Surely bad but it definitely pales in comparison to such historically noteworthy tyrannies as Hitler, Stalin, Ivan the Terrible and most of the dictators in the 3rd world that we just ignore.

    and are now finally being forced to learn the rudiments of democracy and that they shouldn’t expect to be able to kill each other to solve their countries’ problems

    Yes we see how well that whole process is going. Besides the fact that you can’t foist a democracy on a people unprepared for it, we have the integration of Sharia Law into these “democracies” that we’ve grown. Just think, six years ago, under the Taliban, a man could be executed in Afghanistan for being a Christian. Now that same man in Afghanistan, under his new great representative government, can still be executed for being a Christian. In Iraq we have the same scenario brewing. If the administration had taken off the rose colored glasses for a moment, they probably could have actually planned for these inevitable scenarios instead of pretending that they wouldn’t exist and then hope that the never occur. Now that’s strategery!

  17. You never measure an investment (which the war was) over the short run. The fact of the matter is that Iraq is home to one quarter of the world’s know oil reserves. In Feb. 2003, those oil field were under the control of the dictator formerly known has Saddam, who had contracts with Russia and France. Get rid of Saddam, you get rid of the contracts. With a liberated Iraq, the U.N. sanctions are lifted and the nation is free to make new contracts with, say, American companies.

    It is a fact that there is a limited amount of oil in the world. When a quarter of that oil remains in the hands of a tyrannical psychopath, there is a problem.

    We could argue about the direction of the war, the decision of the Bush administration to not stick closer to the Powell doctrine or even the timing of American withdrawal, but anyone who believes in the depths of their heart that this was about the war on terror and not about oil has been drinking too much of Cheney’s Kool Aide.

    Osama’s not in Iraq. The terrorists didn’t come to Iraq until we got there. Saddam was a tyrant, but not that never guided U.S. policy before.

    Don’t fool yourself, Bruce, the war is about oil, and it should be no surprise. Human beings have gone to war for natural resources before, it is no different now.

  18. #11: Well, it took al Qaeda nearly nine years to mount its second attack on the US mainland. We’re halfway there so come back in 2010 and we’ll revisit this theory. Oh, and the joy of liberation! Now the Afghans have a constitution that they can use to support the idea of executing a person for their religious beliefs. And, oddly enough, Iraq’s new constitution incorporates some of the same concepts that permit Muslim theocrats to hold sway over the legal system.

    Of course there was a choice in 2003. We could have kept our eye on the ball, flushed out Osama, and really put an international effort and big bucks into the attempt to bring Afghanistan into the 21st Century. Meanwhile, we could have continued to squeeze Saddam with the coercive inspections that were underway right up to the point we invaded. Now, would we have had to eventually deal with Saddam? Possibly yes but almost certainly, we would have been in a far stronger position to do so by first nailing Osama and focussing on Afghanistan.

    Now, we’re in a bind. This war of choice in Iraq is increasingly unpopular with the American public who no longer believe neocons like Hanson but instead trust their lyin’ eyes. The public rightly is pissed off that we have set up a system in Afghanistan where someone can be executed for their religious beliefs. The public is on the verge of simply saying “screw it.” Our military is in a bind too. It cannot continue the years of occupation Bush wants without breaking in its current form. The troop levels necessary would require a draft which is now out of the question for such an unpopular war.

    Yes, we made a choice in 2003 and the evidence is now clear that Bush made the “much worse” one.”

  19. #15: “Nope they invaded Africa, and then we invaded France before we invaded Germany.”

    The British were already IN Africa long before the war started and France was invaded because it was OCCUPIED by the Germans and was on the way to Germany itself. Sheesh!

  20. Ian, I gotta hand to you…

    You actually take the time to state an argument. I heartily disagree with almost all of your conclusions, but after spending the better part of my early morning fending off sheer lunacy, it is indeed refreshing to read the comments of someone who has invested the time to decide for himself.

    I’ll probably get back to being obnoxious at some point, but in between bouts of drunken rage, I thought I’d make this small attempt at outreach. 🙂

    Eric in Utter Sincerity

  21. White Squal,

    Read the neoconservative writings at Project for the New American century, to see the ideological basis for why we are in Iraq. It is not about oil, it is about Pax Americana. Think taking the Pax Romana and extending it to the modern known world. While the some of the ideals are laudible, history shows that the concept is inherently flawed and successful execution impossible. The bottom line however is that this is not a war for oil. Oil is a factor in as much as it is whenever we pay attention to the Middle East, but no more.

  22. #20: Gasp! Good thing I was sitting down, Eric. In some respects, arguing about options in 2003 may be pointless except for how the decisions made reflect on the judgement of those who made them. At this point, we ARE in a bind in Iraq and whether we stay the course beyond Bush’s term or leave within a year, there will be serious consequences. You and I can argue all we want but the decision is likely to be forced by an angry and bitter American public. I suspect that poor Afghan Christian will be released to the tender mercies of a mullah-inspired mob. And the public here won’t have to see his bloody corpse to be rightly enraged about it. Their response is unlikely to be patiently staying the course.

    Iraq is a mess and if armchair conservative pundits want to see all the good news, they ought to get their asses over there now and report it on it all. But first they may consider carefully the comments of a jounalist in Iraq on today’s Reliable Resources:

    “You don’t think that I haven’t been to the U.S. military and the State Department and the embassy and asked them over and over again, let’s see the good stories, show us some of the good things that are going on? Oh, sorry, we can’t take to you that school project, because if you put that on TV, they’re going to be attacked about, the teachers are going to be killed, the children might be victims of attack.

    Oh, sorry, we can’t show this reconstruction project because then that’s going to expose it to sabotage. And the last time we had journalists down here, the plant was attacked.”

  23. Mr Mod & WhiteSquall, you forgot to add the other regular moonbat rant with the “shortly after we will invade Iran” buzz… that’s the one where you identify the conspiracy among the WH and House GOPers who are readying a bill to reauthorize the draft AFTER their predictable loss of majority control at midterms. You guys gotta keep up that subscription to the Democrat Underground.

    Just trying to keep you on the narrow gauge track laid out by the radical Democrats. Not all your engines appeared to firing… “it’s all about oil” –LOL.

  25. love you smugness, clearly you know the answer but love the occassional pot shot 🙂

    free market economy; and the insurgents control what little oil there is to not make a difference on market supply

    $2.50 cheap, come talk to me when you are paying $3 a pop

    when adjusted i think prices are still cheaper than they were in the late 70s early 80s

  26. Oooh, lots of theories for this question, GP. One that seems to be gaining popularity among leftists nowadays is the “OilCrash” scenario. It claims that all the oil in the world has already been found, and now we’re running out of industrial capitalist love-juice. But of course those evil Republicans haven’t explored alternative-energy sources like turning Crisco to diesel fuel or putting lots of big ugly windmills everywhere, which means that we’re doomed, doomed, doomed. In the next thirty years or so, food prices will skyrocket, transportation networks will collapse, the electric grid will flicker out, modern conveniences will disappear, and Western civilization will revert to the 14th century. The only people who’ll survive the cataclysm will be those who own their own farmland, and even they’ll be subject to all manner of ecological catastrophes because of global warming. And that’s if we’re lucky. (This is what some leftists actually believe.)

    Of course, a much better explanation is that overall demand for oil has increased — thanks to industrialization in the developing world (esp. China) — while production capacity has remained stable. As we learned in ECON 101, increased demand and a level supply lead to higher prices.

  27. 16: What was the timing between the first and second world trade center bombings? I’ll give you a hint, more than five years.

    Although I would agree with Mr. Moderate that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, I dispute his assumption that the 9/11 attacks were in continuous preparation since 1992. A general plan to use commercial aircraft as missiles against civilian targets was in circulation by 1995, but the specific idea for 9/11 doesn’t seem to have been hatched until 1998. (That was about the time al-Qaeda bombed several US embassies in Africa, and roughly two years before it attacked the USS Cole.)

    Since 2001, Al-Qaeda terrorists have made at least two attempts to fly commercial airplanes into the Library Tower, in downtown Los Angeles. The first was in 2002.

  28. #25: “come talk to me when you are paying $3 a pop”

    Uh, that would have been last fall. Not to fear, oil has its ups and down but if you look closely, there’s a ratchet effect and the trend is up, up, and away especially now that we’re close to Peak Oil. There are wrenching changes coming and there isn’t a damned thing anyone can do about it.

    #24: Gee, I thought the answer by Sassy pretty much said it but maybe it was too subtle for you. Anyway, to put it in terms even a neocon can understand: the reason we’re paying more for oil is BECAUSE BUSHCO SCREWED IT ALL UP. At this point, even if you get the oil up and pumping, why would the Iraqis necessarily sell it all to us at a bargain price? Oh that’s right, they’ll sell it cheap to us because we’ll have better than 100,000 occupation troops there fighting an insurgency for the next umpteen years. Now a quick back of the envelope calculation yields the following. Let’s say Iraq gets back to pumping oil at its best ever rate (1990) of roughly 1 billion barrels a year and that the U.S. gets it all let’s say at the sweetheart price of $30 a barrel. Great you say? Ah, but don’t forget our costs of occupying Iraq which I think are probably running around $100 billion a year. That’s an effective tax on Americans of $100 a barrel of “bargain” Iraqi oil bringing the effective cost to the american consumer of $130 a barrel. NOT such a great deal after all. Remember the oil companies don’t care because they’ll still make their profits but YOU suckers will be paying a ton more in taxes (or as preferred by Repubs, interest on borrowings) and wondering why you just can’t get ahead in life.

  30. True, Bruce, I didn’t answer your question, and I think Tim Hulsey’s supply and demand is as good as any answer I could give. The truth is I have no idea what goes into the calculation of the price of crude, and I won’t pretend I do.

    But be honest: You never had a question. You tried to weaken the argument that the oil in Iraq had no bearing on our decision to go to war by using the price of gas. My answer to your sophomoric rhetorical quesiton was that the price of gas has nothing do it with our intentions in going to war, but building our presence in an area of strategic importance.

    As far as there being a limited amount of oil in the world, check your GEO 101 — it is a fact. Unless new fields are discovered, which is a possibility, what we see is what we get. What partisans like you, Bruce, always fail to do is question the motives of your leaders. Why would it be so implausible that a quarter of the world’s known oil reserves remained tied up to a pyschopath and that something had to be done about it? That I understand, not some garbage about WMDs or “terrorists” in Iraq.

  33. #29: “This is what some leftists actually believe.”

    Not just some leftists. And just so we know how much weight to assign to your technical opinion, please tell us all which scientific or engineering discipline your Ph.D. is in. Mine is in materials engineering.

    Peak Oil doesn’t mean we’re “running out” of oil. In fact, we will NEVER run out of oil. It will just become so costly, we won’t be able to afford to burn it. Peak Oil simply refers to the point at which production reaches a maximum as it MUST do for any non-renewable resource. Peak Oil for the US occurred over 30 years ago. We are almost certainly within five to ten years of Peak Oil for the world. Yes, there are tar sands and shale oil and coal conversion but the transition is going to be painful especially for a country like ours that is so in hock to foreigners such as the Chinese not to mention bogged down in expensive wars.

  34. #31: I have not blamed Bush for peak oil which BTW is unrelated to the existence of oil refineries. More oil refineries won’t help when there’s a lack of affordable oil to refine. Obviously he doesn’t control China’s or India’s thirst for oil either. But wouldn’t you think that since we are at war in the Middle East, he would have at least come out and told the American people in no uncertain terms that is was NO LESS than their patriotic duty to conserve energy? Instead he offers huge tax writeoffs for gas guzzlers like Hummers.

  35. Hey Laura Ingraham, don’t look to the Iraqi schools for your “good news” stories:

    “On Wednesday, armed insurgents burst into the classroom of Khidhir al-Mihallawi, an English teacher at Sajariyah High School, accused him of being an agent for the CIA and Israeli intelligence and beheaded him in front of his students, according to students, fellow instructors and a physician at a local hospital.”

    http://tinyurl.com/fa5t9

    Although I suppose the fact that the classroom will now get a fresh coat of paint to cover up the blood stains might qualify as “good news.”

  36. That’s the face of the enemy.

    And the “peace” movement can’t be bothered to waste our soldier’s lives… nothing is worth American lives.

    It’s good enough to support our soldiers lives, and they might die over there, so we should go home.

    Close our eyes tight.

    Stick our fingers in our ears.

    And hum.

    Really loud.

  38. Yes, Ian….

    I’m drinking again.

    Just so ya know.

    I still love America, though.

    My little brother’s goin back to Iraq for the second time. This fucks me up, but I still think he’s doing the right thing.

    I pray for him, and I hope you wish him well, too.

  40. #28 – it is a personal thing. I just find it slightly amusing when the rest of the country complains about high prices at the pump. I know it is relative, but I live in the Bay Area where just about everything is more expensive than it need be. And once again after taking a nosedive last fall to prices below the start of the year, gas prices have spiked here again. We are so above the national average that I get a good chuckle when they report such news. But not quite the chuckle I get when the Bay Area News does the occassional report on where to find cheap gas. it is normally one station some 40 miles away from where you live.

  41. Actually, gas prices spike at this point every year, primarily because of ridiculous EPA regulations mandating more than 50 different blends for different geographical regions of the country. This is the time of year when the EPA mandates a changeover from Winter Blends to Summer Blends. Coupled with a shortage of refining capacity, this causes price spikes in the Spring.

    As for the supply situation, there are potentially huge supplies of oil in the Arctic, in the Gulf of Mexico, and elsewhere in North America that we are not allowed to touch because of environmental extremists.

  44. Jack, another good point the libs would rather defer, avoid… we could lower gas prices in Michigan by about 20% if we just got rid of all the taxes on gasoline –in Michigan we charge the usual 18 cents for the fed’s share, 19 cents for the state excise tax, another 8 cents for the state for sales tax on the taxes (a tax on taxes collected) and fuel, plus 2 cents for environmental clean up of leaking underground storage tanks at old gas stations –which should the financial liability of the schmucks who polluted it in the first place.

    Of the fed share we ship to DC, Michigan gets back about 40% in highway funding –we’re a gas tax exporter.

    Add it all up, 47 cents in taxes on a $2.50 gallon of gasoline… what govt doesn’t want the taxpayers-at-the-pump to notice is that all the govt largess for road building, bridge construction, land assembly, etc is being paid by consumers through mostly hidden taxes at the pump.

    But that info is a far reach from what Bruce was trying to do with his post: which was to point out the fallacy of the liberals’ rant about Iraq is a War for Oil… or Hallliburton profits… or conservative hegemony in the Middle East (thank you HowieDean)… or “GoB knows what”.

    And on that point, Bruce was dead-on despite the liberal spin doctors here and the attempt to divert debate.

  46. #38: “I hope you wish him well, too.”

    I’d pray for him except I’m an atheist. Still I wish him and all our brave soldiers over there a safe – and if I had my way, speedy – return.

  48. #44: “Of the fed share we ship to DC, Michigan gets back about 40% in highway funding –we’re a gas tax exporter.”

    Actually, like most blue states, you’re a tax exporter. Funny that it’s the red states that get subsidizd by the blue ones through the tax system.

    http://tinyurl.com/5wgug

  49. Ian, do you actually read and comprehend comments and links before posting? That’s what I wrote, but I’ll go especially slow for you.

    We (meaning Michigan, Ian) is a gas tax (meaning the taxes a consumer pays at the pump –not tolls, not jet fuel taxes, not marine fuel taxes Ian) exporter (meaning we send more in taxes to DC than we get back in construction projects, etc Ian).

    Hence, my simple point –Michigan is a net tax exporter.

    As your link demostrates in 1.5k words, about 10k characters, 20 paragraphs and over 100 lines. I said it in 6 words.

    Have you thought about going into govt and maybe writing regulations for the nuclear power industry? OHSA? Maybe legislation for Congress? International service on treaty promulgation?

    You show a prowess at taking a simple concept and making it muddy, verbose, and redundant. Juts curious; don’t want you to miss your second calling.

  50. #49: Gee, I missed that part in your post where you drew attention to the odd fact that red states benefit more from federal government largesse than blue ones. After all, it’s those conservative red states that are always whining about federal government handouts yet they’re the ones benefitting most from those handouts. Oh and silly me, when you were specifically talking about the gas tax, I SHOULD have been able to understand that you were talking about ALL taxes. Whatever.

  51. Ian, dismissively stated as always when you err. It’s ok; I try to cut the GayLeft shrillers some slack –the expectations aren’t high for you and your buds in opinion misdemeanors.

    By the way, your insight into red vs blue state is another example of ridiculous statistics from the GayLeft. On average, the blue states should be net exporters to red states because the blue states have larger populations, the red states have greater land mass, and so forth –and that just takes care of the road spending.

    And even then, fair assessments don’t talk about blue v red states on federal spending because most “blue” states are really just another red state with “blue, rotting” cities… ergo the expression: If it’s blue and Democrat, it must be corrupt. It’s a perception thing, Ian.

    For more, see here: http://www.urbanarchipelago.com/

    But off the spending issue, the key 2004 stat I like and take great comfort in is the red states have a 12% higher fertility rate than blue state families –meaning, Ian, that if the trend remains, you’ll be in a minority for at least another generation. Suburban, middle class, aspiring Americans. I gotta love that –Rove terms it “The Ownership Society” and it dooms the Democrats to another generation of marginalized political power.

  52. Actually, Ian, do you realize how inane that “blue states finance the red states argument is” coming from a leftist and Democrat like yourself?

    You see, the reason is because income taxes are assessed on income level. Income level is to a great extent driven by cost of living. The cost of living is lower in the red states and higher in the blue states, so blue states tend to have higher income.

    The irony, of course, is that you and your fellow leftists are constantly whining that taxes need to be raised so that income is “redistributed” and taken away from the “richer” people, who steal it from others, to the “poorer”, who deserve it.

    In short, you’re getting what you want; your tax dollars are being redistributed to those who make less than you.

    It’s ironic as hell, though, that you whine and cry about how “unfair” it is when you get forced on you what you want to force on others.

    Kind of like how millionaire trust-fund baby Democrats keep trying to raise taxes on working people to pay for those Democrats’ pet programs.

  53. #38 Best wishes for your brother, and prayers too. Would you feel comfortable giving his first name? I think I’ll be praying more than I have been and I’ll put a note up to remind me.

    And yeah. I’m a girl.

  55. There is a syn who posts here who isn’t me… I thought I should mention that.

    And I’ll certainly pray for your sister-in-law and nieces. It’s harder, sometimes, to be the one who stays home because of the empty spaces left behind.

  56. Gee, I missed that part in your post where you drew attention to the odd fact that red states benefit more from federal government largesse than blue ones.

    This is one of those examples of liberal math illiteracy, along with the red v. blue state IQ myth, that has been shot down so many times you should be ashamed to repeat it. Then, since when did liberals have any shame?

  58. #52: “you whine and cry about how “unfair” it is when you get forced on you what you want to force on others.”

    I have done nothing of the sort and challenge you to quote me where I have done so. I simply pointed out how the anti-government handout folks seem to have the most power in states that get more in handouts than they pay in federal taxes.

    I don’t think that blue-staters mind that this happens. At least I’ve seen no mass effort to eliminate the discrepancy. But what if the red-staters got their way and eliminated most of the federal government? They’d wind up being even poorer hellholes than they are already! Meanwhile, the blue states would be able to continue to pay for everything the feds did and give a nice tax cut to boot.

  59. 33: Not just some leftists.

    True, Ian — among the most fervent “OilCrash” faithful is a Republican congressman from Maryland. Leftists love to quote him because he’s Republican. They think it increases their credibility.

    You don’t have to be a mechanical engineer to refute the “OilCrash” scenario. You can do it with a basic knowledge of free-market economics and nineteenth-century history. Even if we’re starting to run low on oil — which is probably not the case — it doesn’t mean that Western civ will be set back seven hundred years.

    It’s odd to think of fossil fuels as “alternative energy” sources, but in the mid 19th century that’s precisely what they were. Crude oil emerged in the 1850s as an inexpensive (and rather smelly) substitute for whale oil, which had become more expensive and difficult to obtain. Coal served as a substitute for increasingly scarce timber resources. Free markets handle scarcity by promoting more efficient usage and encouraging the development of cost-effective alternatives.

  61. 58: Agreed about those red-state subsidies, Ian, though this is more of an urban/rural distinction than a strict red-state/blue-state one. Areas with low population density aren’t going to have much of a transportation infrastructure (i.e., paved highways) unless some redistribution occurs at the national level. Still, much could be done to make the overall imbalance less severe — the most obvious one being an end to farm subsidies and fraudulent bio-fuel initiatives. This issue, however, is only tangentially related to the initial question about the price of oil.

  62. There’s also the fact that rural can get along without urban, but the opposite isn’t true.

    Granted rural doesn’t *want* to get along without urban… the material comfort granted by industry and the population base to support it is pretty darn nice.

    But food is even nicer.

  63. I simply pointed out how the anti-government handout folks seem to have the most power in states that get more in handouts than they pay in federal taxes

    Don’t you think you could at least try not to show your utter lack of comprehension of statistics and economics? Do you get some kind of kinky kick out of making an illiterate ass of yourself?

  64. #61: I know there are reasons for the red/blue disparity such as population density, demographics and so on. Still, it’s interesting to observe and I only brought it up following Matt’s mentioning the disparity as it pertains to Michigan’s federal gas tax.

    Back to the price of gas. Two years ago (third week of March), it was $1.79 a gallon, last year it was $2.15, this year $2.54. Pretty steep gains. And contrary to the claim made that there is always a peak at this time, I don’t see it in the historical data across all grades and all formulations http://tinyurl.com/2mjow

  66. It still would have been a whole lot more economical to just buy the fuel from Sadam.

    The “it’s the oil” argument always makes me think of Dr. Evil being briefed on his enormous legitimate business gains then explaining that they’re going to hold the world for ransom. “I’m evil, it’s what I do.”

  69. 62: There’s also the fact that rural can get along without urban, but the opposite isn’t true.

    But under a global marketplace, urban America is able to get along quite well without rural America. For example, city folks don’t have to buy their oranges from Florida (a good thing, since the groves are slowly turning into housing developments and retirement condos); instead, they buy fruit raised in Brazil, Honduras and Mexico.

  70. this oil goes to china and the far east…not us or s american markets1

    Thus freeing up other oil supplies for our consumption.

    Economic literacy. It’s a good thing. You might want to look into it.

  71. #13. Ian, guess what – YOU”RE NOT HELPING! Just like every other liberal moon bat you’re doing nothing but whining and complaining. It’s not the American public who has lost patience – it is you because you’re a selfish, self-righteous little twit who has no problem distorting the truth in order to try to make yourself appear to be right. But you are WRONG! Iraq had plenty to do with terror prior to ’03, and had killed hundreds of thousands of it’s own people, waged war on two neighbors, supported families of suicide bombers from Palestine, attempted to assassinate Bush the elder, shot at our patrol jets daily for ten years as they patrolled the UN imposed no-fly zones, thumbed it’s nose at weapons inspections teams multiple times, and violated more than a dozen UN resolutions, and on and on and on! But you’re such a f*ck head that none of this matters to you. You’re such a tard you can’t connect the dots. You see trouble with an emerging democracy and your comment is a sarcastic “ah, the joys of democracy”!

    Well, you snivling little piece of crap, when you have something constructive to say and do I invite you to do so. But I know you’re not the kind of person to make the tough decisions, to do what is right even if it may be unpopular. All you care about is your selfish little self. And to that I say SHAME ON YOU!

  72. #71: So Dave, do you have anything aside from shrill insults and regurgitated talking points to contribute? Throwing a tantrum doesn’t change the facts on the ground in Iraq. I stand by my prediction: we’ll be out of there in a year because the American people will have lost patience with the war and will refuse to make the sacrifices required to maintain 100,000 troops there indefinitely. You can say whatever you want about how bad a guy Saddam was – he’s history. The American people know that, they’re happy he’s gone, and that we’ve helped the iraqis put together a constitution and an elected government. In a few months we’ll have been fighting in Iraq for longer than we fought in WW2. The American people have had enough of Bush Administration lies and incompetence. The jig is up, you know it and that’s why you’re so petulant.

  73. #69 So it’s global. You still can’t grow oranges to feed a city within a city, or grain or potatoes or meat. You can produce some, but not enough to feed yourself.

    So you get grain from Argentina instead of Kansas… you’re still entirely dependant on rural, it’s just Argentinian farmers instead of American ones.

    And the farmers can still get on without you. In Argentina or Kansas.

  74. #72. Ian, you have blood on your hands for taking your position – more than any Republican. You encourage cowardice. You encourage the enemy. You lack vision. You lack good will. Despite supposed popular opinion we will see this through. We will see it through for the benefit of mankind despite you.

    Good things are happening in Iraq. But you refuse to see them. The cost to our country is great. Yet you refuse to believe that we can afford it. Our country is good yet you choose to see only negatives. It’s your vision that I deplore. For you and the likes of you the future is nothing but darkness for all humanity. You choose surrender and cowardice. I choose a brighter vision.

  75. 73: And the farmers can still get on without you. In Argentina or Kansas.

    As long as they’re willing to eat nothing but grain, yes. But if they want to eat other things, too, they need international markets — which are always in the city.

  77. #74: Dave, Dave, Dave, it’s not me. I have no power or say in how this war was conducted. Nor does any progressive/liberal/Democrat/libertarian. This is a GOP-run war from the start and the GOP has to accept responsibility for the failures just as they would the successes – or is taking responsibility no longer part of the GOP mantra? The blood is on the hands of the GOP and the SCLM that cheered them on. Now if there are all these “good news” stories that are going unreported, then I strongly suggest that you get after the Laura Ingrahams, the Sean Hannitys and the Bill O’Reillys to go to Iraq and get out among the Iraqi people and report back to us about all the “good news” they find. I mean is that to much to ask of these “journalists” who are carping all the time from their comfy NYC studios about lack of “good news?” FWIW, I don’t recommend holding your breath waiting for it to happen.

  78. #77. Laura Ingraham has been there and recently reported on the good things she saw. She admitted it’s difficult. But difficult is where you and your ilk bail. Pay some attention and you may learn something one day. Until then learn how to build something other than your own ego.

  79. #77. By the way Ian, I know Libertarians and Independants who currently vote Republican. I’d really like to know what your vision is buddy, beyond running away from Iraq like a coward. Do you want to see 25 or even 50 million people subjected to tyranny again? Do you want their hopes to be destroyed? I believe you do as long as it makes you appear to be right.

  80. this oil goes to china and the far east…not us or s american markets1

    Thus freeing up other oil supplies for our consumption.

    – actually Vdak, I believe China and India are using all that they previously got and more relatively speaking of new supplies,
    we are getting jacked

  81. Ian at #77 “…this is a GOP-run war from the start….”

    Oh Ian. Oh Ian. It is every American’s war; it is every free world citizen’s war. It is your war as much as it is mine and that’s why many of us bristle at the radical Left neighborhood you populate because it is not a partisan issue. Anymore than VietNam was a Democrat’s war.

    And for the record, Ian, there were lots of your buds on the Democrat side willing to wrap themselves in the Flag for the WOT… in the House, the vote was 296-133; the Senate, 77-23.

    When you project the uninformed opinion that this is a GOP-led war, you do our enemies a greater service by trying to divide the country, rather than support the mission and the troops.

    That is, IF you’re an American.

  82. Ian at #13 “…Afghanistan that the elected President is commonly referred to as the mayor of Kabul since that is the extent of his power. Further evidence of his weakness is his silence regarding the possible death sentence for that Christian on trial. You do know of course that that poor guy is going to be killed even if the government sets him free.”

    Umm, Ian? Now that Italy is offering political asylum, do you care to retract yet another uninformed, silly opinion you’ve offered here?

  84. #81: “Oh Ian. Oh Ian. It is every American’s war;”

    Yes, but as I said, the war IS GOP-run the last I checked. Either you Bush cultists don’t read very well or you have a fetish for straw.

  85. #82: “Italy is offering political asylum”

    Great, I’m glad to hear it. He’ll be perfectly safe. After all, there aren’t any radical European Muslims that would threaten him, are there? Does the name Theo van Gogh ring a bell?

  88. If Democrats have no influence on the running of this war it’s because they’ve removed themselves from any place where they could have had an influence. Try being a Democrat who has any “hawklike” tendancies and see where it gets you? Protested by Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan, probably. No Democrat dares come out in favor of victory so *by their choice* they’ve marginalized any possible Democratic party input into how the war is fought.

    Clinton can agitate for additional body armor that Marines don’t want to wear without angering the anti-war crowd. (re: armor. Visualize the little brother in his snow suit in A Christmas Story.) And it’s all fine and good if the Democrats call for pulling out our troops… none of their constituents seem to mind that too much. Complaining how Bush does it all wrong is okay too. Kerry can claim to have a “better plan” so long as he doesn’t explain what it is or explain that it means *fighting* (if it does.)

    Is it politically possible for a Democrat to be publically pro-Victory?

    If it happened, it would still be a “GOP run war” because the pro-Victory Democrat would be redefined as a Republican stooge.

  89. And, what I think that every Democrat who wants to bitch about the war needs to state is the following:

    “I believe that putting a stop to these sort of things was unnecessary.”

    “We should not be concerned that Saddam was able to summarily commit genocide of hundreds of thousands of individuals, continue clandestine weapons building, support terrorists inside and outside Iraq, and make numerous attempts to assassinate world leaders while under, and in defiance of, the strictest possible UN sanctions.”

    “It is perfectly justified to hide information from the American public, such as Saddam’s imprisonment of babies and toddler-age children of political dissidents, in the name of ‘dealing peace'”.

    After all, that’s what they’re implying. Why are they too cowardly to say it publicly, if they believe that’s what the American people are saying?

  90. Ian, I know you like to avoid capitulation when you err, but you were the one to underscore that Democrats… Libertarians…progressives… liberals are NOT “responsible” for the war –as in, it isn’t our fault. In fact, you plead that indirectly in your opening point at #77. “Dave, Dave, Dave; it’s not me” ring a bell? The “GOP-run” attribution supports you think it isn’t a WOT for all Americans. Like RWP points out.

    It’s ok. Like I wrote earlier, we cut you some slack because the expectation for you isn’t very high.

    Last time I checked, von Gogh was murdered in Amsterdam –which still isn’t considered a suburb of Italy even by the moonbat Left. Or is your map differently constituted? And on point, von Gogh was murdered because he was an outspoken critic of Islam and political radicals within the muslim community struck out at von Gogh because of his efforts to ban immigration, begin deporting muslims back to their country of orgin, and enact measures to protect “Dutch” culture. What that has to do with a Christian Afghan seeking to practice his faith is beyond you, evidently. It’s night and day even if you’re still wearing blinders.

    But thanks for trying to say you were wrong. It’s a start toward getting you off the Democrat Plantation & the influence of those GayLefties.

  91. Good points, NDXXX and Synova. I’m beginning to think that the “Party of Just Do No” is content to shoot spitballs from the bleachers… and munch on Ian’s popcorn.

  92. #90: It’s never wise to lie about comments that are within easy reach with the scroll wheel on your mouse. It does your arguments – such as they are – a real disservice and simply makes you look trapped and desperate. The facts on the responsibility for the conduct of the war in Iraq are exactly as I stated them and I used the words “conducted” and “run” so as to be precise. You can spin and twist all you like but my statements were clear as any honest person would have to admit.

    As for Italy, Wikipedia states there are some 1,000,000 Muslims living there, the vast majority being non-citizens. Frankly, if I were that Christian convert, I wouldn’t broadcast my identity in ANY European country. Easy for you to consider his risk in Italy no big deal.

    To those who have little to contribute beyond juvenile insults, please keep it up. It only makes YOU look juvenile. 😉

  93. Ian, if reason and rationality have no utility in your world –and you seek a reality where accountability is waived for the GayLeft– I guess wild-assed speculation is the way for you to go… It’s ok, we can cut you some slack while you learn. But you have to take a step off the Democrat Plantation.

    BTW, wiki citations in most ADULT conversations aren’t generally used except by the intellectually lame… it’s ok for high school classroom debates, but few adults count it as legit. Again, we can cut you some slack but just don’t start referencing People magazine or Brit tabloids.

    You were wrong on the projection that the WOT is Bush’s war or a GOP war even if a majority of elected Democrats once supported it before they backtracked. It’s America’s war, Ian. That’s the point –whether or not you get it. And I think you do.

  94. The Wiki number is confirmed by other sources. Interestingly, you don’t provide any information to counter the number of 1 million Muslims in Italy. Plus you continue to lie about what I have said. SOP for conservatives these days I guess.

  95. Ian, I don’t have to counter your stats… whether from wiki (ughh, you just don’t get it) or from your favorite blog “Crooks & Liars” –Abdul Rahman will likley take the offer from Italy and, frankly, he’ll do just fine. He won’t be killed if he “escapes” Afghanistan… although the dramatic concept of identifying his flight to Italy as an “escape” shouldn’t avoid gentle readers’ detection.

    No Ian, you were wrong about the war being Bush’s war, or the GOP’s and Democrats have no responsibility for its prosecution. It’s America’s war with international allies and you’re disingenuous to state otherwise.

    BTW, when you’re writing about “Rubber Stamp Republicans” you might want to think how much a tool of the Democrat Left you’ve become that those phrases don’t even impact you anymore… it’s an old Crooks & Liars cheap shot. It marks you.

  97. …and years of Democrats and eco-terrorists using the federal courts to stop new refining facilities, added drilling fields, the use of new technology in offshore drilling, and obstructing the construction of alternative energy facilities like nuclear power plants, mega-farms for corn production (ethanol) and on and on.

    Right, it’s all about Republicans working with their oil buddies to rip off America. Right.