Petroleum Economics and the Middle East (19 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
If that's what the gang bangers think good for them, but really they are stuck for generally a minimum of four years for active duty, and close to two for the reserves(at least these days when you go to Iraq). And then there's the stop loss issue. That's probably funny to see the look on their faces.
I'm sure some gang members join up to "get they shoot on" just the same as some rednecks join up to "kill some sand niggers" but the reality of the situation is that we are talking about a small population of our military. The US military is really far from the pirates with guns image most people (at least here) have.
I'm sure some gang members join up to "get they shoot on" just the same as some rednecks join up to "kill some sand niggers" but the reality of the situation is that we are talking about a small population of our military. The US military is really far from the pirates with guns image most people (at least here) have.
No one has talked about other PMCs. Not that they are angels (even though they serve their limited need, its deporable in principle and corrpupting in every way), but Blackwater is the most powerful and worst by some margin. Plus they are unique in that they have branched to a scale that is unimagineable for PMCs in general, which usually is about more low key stuff like being a bodyguard for VIPs or training countries armies, modernizing them.
But considering the industry has grown in an insane rate, its worth $100 billion a year, then it goes without saying its EXTREMELY dirty (not that it isnt dirty in principle alone, its mere function and grease is to get more green, but the facts its so huge is even worse). It doesnt only blurr or cross the line, it leaps over it BY miles. Its a very dangerous precedence that keeps growing, and alarmingly enough keeps being unhinged and unchecked. Which its obvious because the industry is worth $100 billion a year. Who the fuck would mess that kind of bussiness?
But considering the industry has grown in an insane rate, its worth $100 billion a year, then it goes without saying its EXTREMELY dirty (not that it isnt dirty in principle alone, its mere function and grease is to get more green, but the facts its so huge is even worse). It doesnt only blurr or cross the line, it leaps over it BY miles. Its a very dangerous precedence that keeps growing, and alarmingly enough keeps being unhinged and unchecked. Which its obvious because the industry is worth $100 billion a year. Who the fuck would mess that kind of bussiness?
Btw even if I brought up the gang element, I must say I agree with you 100%. I just thought it was odd, seeing the indepth docu, how welcoming the military was for hardocre gangsters, despite the fact they were quite open and direct with their purpose.
But the officers interviewed also said, as I think is valid point, that its also saves some of the gangbangers from that lifestyle by giving them an option, a way a life they can choose.
But the officers interviewed also said, as I think is valid point, that its also saves some of the gangbangers from that lifestyle by giving them an option, a way a life they can choose.
It's odd that many European countries have paid into that $100 billion. Yet protest Blackwater. Well maybe its not, it is convenient that PMCs don't have to obey Rules of Engagement like regular military does. Which is in itself a sad thing. Those guys don't answer to anyone and may not be prosecutable by a war crimes tribunal.
I've never understood how on earth people don't see through this bullshit in this country. Wow, another conservative Christian with ties to the KKK. How many is that now? Two, three, fifteen thousand? I honestly don't understand why people can support some of these conservatives in this day in age, but then when you consider the fact they're the "religious choice of the ballot," it all makes sense then. The only thing worse than politics in religion is fucking religion in politics.
There are good apples and their are bad apples. Whenever a discussion such as this comes up, my only answer to it is ask the citizens who live in these nations we invade how much of a ship of pirates we happen to be. The answer isn't always pretty, hence why nobody likes us around the world. In reality we are a bunch of pirates in general, not necessarily man for man though obviously.
There are good apples and their are bad apples. Whenever a discussion such as this comes up, my only answer to it is ask the citizens who live in these nations we invade how much of a ship of pirates we happen to be. The answer isn't always pretty, hence why nobody likes us around the world. In reality we are a bunch of pirates in general, not necessarily man for man though obviously.
Its not odd, its an international bussiness that is convenient for the whole world (even if the clientele somewhat limited), serves a big need and does the easy grunt work for them, dont have to get dirty themselves. It has breached one big convenient loophole (a VERY dangerous precedence has been set). No need for PR disasters and losing face anymore. You get deniability for your big bucks, they dont have to answer to anyone, and everyone who lobbies for the obvious of stopping them or making laws against, gets shut down.
Are you guys gamers? Know of Metal Gear Solid? Its funny as heck, allways thought it was corious alternative history thing and fantasy by the genius game developer Hide Kojima. But this all makes him look like frigging Nostradamus. Been making interactive stories of how the definitions of military forces gets blurred or totally erased. Of how PMCs becomes a self-feeding powerful industry that needs to keep going, and only through constant wars. Allways thought it was unrealistic and cinematic melodrama, but its eerie how close it is to the reality.
Well the PMC storyline is more in the 2nd game, and now totally in the 4th one that will come out soon. The games are masterpieces IMO so play them 
But seriously, the crooked PMC driven world that is depicted in the game, its eerie how close it is. I will quote something our friend Rumsfeld said, I kid you not, that in gest, his mumbling twisting response is pretty much identical and a big indicator of how the powerful figures in the game say/think:
---------------------------------------------------------------
On 5 December 2005, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a lecture dubbed "The Future of Iraq" at Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.[6] During a Q&A session afterwards he was asked a question by graduate student Kate Turner regarding PMCs.
Turner: "There are currently thousands of private military contractors in Iraq and you were just speaking of rules of engagement in regards to Iraqi personnel and US personnel. Could you speak to, since the private contractors are operating outside the Uniform Code of Military Justice, can you speak to what law or rules of engagement do govern their behavior and whether there has been any study showing that it is cost effective to have them in Iraq rather than US military personnel. Thank you."
Rumsfeld: "Thank you. It is clearly cost-effective to have contractors for a variety of things that military people need not do, and that for whatever reason other civilians, government people, cannot be deployed to do. There are a lot of contractors, a growing number. They come from our country but they come from all countries, and indeed sometimes the contracts are from our country or another country and they employ people from totally different countries including Iraqis and people from neighboring nations. And there are a lot of them. It's a growing number. Of course we've got to begin with the fact that, as you point out, they're not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We understand that. There are laws that govern the behavior of Americans in that country. The Department of Justice oversees that. There is an issue that is current as to the extent to which they can or cannot carry weapons, and that's an issue. It's also an issue, of course, with the Iraqis. But if you think about it, Iraq’s a sovereign country. They have their laws and they're going to govern, the UN resolution and the Iraqi laws, as well as U.S. procedures and laws govern behavior in that country depending on who the individual is and what he's doing. But I personally am of the view that there are a lot of things that can be done for a short time basis by contractors that advantage the United States and advantage other countries who also hire contractors, and that any idea that we shouldn't have them I think would be unwise."
Umm....Not worry about at all
But seriously, the crooked PMC driven world that is depicted in the game, its eerie how close it is. I will quote something our friend Rumsfeld said, I kid you not, that in gest, his mumbling twisting response is pretty much identical and a big indicator of how the powerful figures in the game say/think:
---------------------------------------------------------------
On 5 December 2005, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a lecture dubbed "The Future of Iraq" at Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.[6] During a Q&A session afterwards he was asked a question by graduate student Kate Turner regarding PMCs.
Turner: "There are currently thousands of private military contractors in Iraq and you were just speaking of rules of engagement in regards to Iraqi personnel and US personnel. Could you speak to, since the private contractors are operating outside the Uniform Code of Military Justice, can you speak to what law or rules of engagement do govern their behavior and whether there has been any study showing that it is cost effective to have them in Iraq rather than US military personnel. Thank you."
Rumsfeld: "Thank you. It is clearly cost-effective to have contractors for a variety of things that military people need not do, and that for whatever reason other civilians, government people, cannot be deployed to do. There are a lot of contractors, a growing number. They come from our country but they come from all countries, and indeed sometimes the contracts are from our country or another country and they employ people from totally different countries including Iraqis and people from neighboring nations. And there are a lot of them. It's a growing number. Of course we've got to begin with the fact that, as you point out, they're not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We understand that. There are laws that govern the behavior of Americans in that country. The Department of Justice oversees that. There is an issue that is current as to the extent to which they can or cannot carry weapons, and that's an issue. It's also an issue, of course, with the Iraqis. But if you think about it, Iraq’s a sovereign country. They have their laws and they're going to govern, the UN resolution and the Iraqi laws, as well as U.S. procedures and laws govern behavior in that country depending on who the individual is and what he's doing. But I personally am of the view that there are a lot of things that can be done for a short time basis by contractors that advantage the United States and advantage other countries who also hire contractors, and that any idea that we shouldn't have them I think would be unwise."
Umm....Not worry about at all
Well the PMC storyline is more in the 2nd game, and now totally in the 4th one that will come out soon. The games are masterpieces IMO so play them
But seriously, the crooked PMC driven world that is depicted in the game, its eerie how close it is. I will quote something our friend Rumsfeld said, I kid you not, that in gest, his mumbling twisting response is pretty much identical and a big indicator of how the powerful figures in the game say/think:
---------------------------------------------------------------
On 5 December 2005, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a lecture dubbed "The Future of Iraq" at Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.[6] During a Q&A session afterwards he was asked a question by graduate student Kate Turner regarding PMCs.
Turner: "There are currently thousands of private military contractors in Iraq and you were just speaking of rules of engagement in regards to Iraqi personnel and US personnel. Could you speak to, since the private contractors are operating outside the Uniform Code of Military Justice, can you speak to what law or rules of engagement do govern their behavior and whether there has been any study showing that it is cost effective to have them in Iraq rather than US military personnel. Thank you."
Rumsfeld: "Thank you. It is clearly cost-effective to have contractors for a variety of things that military people need not do, and that for whatever reason other civilians, government people, cannot be deployed to do. There are a lot of contractors, a growing number. They come from our country but they come from all countries, and indeed sometimes the contracts are from our country or another country and they employ people from totally different countries including Iraqis and people from neighboring nations. And there are a lot of them. It's a growing number. Of course we've got to begin with the fact that, as you point out, they're not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We understand that. There are laws that govern the behavior of Americans in that country. The Department of Justice oversees that. There is an issue that is current as to the extent to which they can or cannot carry weapons, and that's an issue. It's also an issue, of course, with the Iraqis. But if you think about it, Iraq’s a sovereign country. They have their laws and they're going to govern, the UN resolution and the Iraqi laws, as well as U.S. procedures and laws govern behavior in that country depending on who the individual is and what he's doing. But I personally am of the view that there are a lot of things that can be done for a short time basis by contractors that advantage the United States and advantage other countries who also hire contractors, and that any idea that we shouldn't have them I think would be unwise."
Umm....Not worry about at all
But seriously, the crooked PMC driven world that is depicted in the game, its eerie how close it is. I will quote something our friend Rumsfeld said, I kid you not, that in gest, his mumbling twisting response is pretty much identical and a big indicator of how the powerful figures in the game say/think:
---------------------------------------------------------------
On 5 December 2005, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a lecture dubbed "The Future of Iraq" at Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.[6] During a Q&A session afterwards he was asked a question by graduate student Kate Turner regarding PMCs.
Turner: "There are currently thousands of private military contractors in Iraq and you were just speaking of rules of engagement in regards to Iraqi personnel and US personnel. Could you speak to, since the private contractors are operating outside the Uniform Code of Military Justice, can you speak to what law or rules of engagement do govern their behavior and whether there has been any study showing that it is cost effective to have them in Iraq rather than US military personnel. Thank you."
Rumsfeld: "Thank you. It is clearly cost-effective to have contractors for a variety of things that military people need not do, and that for whatever reason other civilians, government people, cannot be deployed to do. There are a lot of contractors, a growing number. They come from our country but they come from all countries, and indeed sometimes the contracts are from our country or another country and they employ people from totally different countries including Iraqis and people from neighboring nations. And there are a lot of them. It's a growing number. Of course we've got to begin with the fact that, as you point out, they're not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We understand that. There are laws that govern the behavior of Americans in that country. The Department of Justice oversees that. There is an issue that is current as to the extent to which they can or cannot carry weapons, and that's an issue. It's also an issue, of course, with the Iraqis. But if you think about it, Iraq’s a sovereign country. They have their laws and they're going to govern, the UN resolution and the Iraqi laws, as well as U.S. procedures and laws govern behavior in that country depending on who the individual is and what he's doing. But I personally am of the view that there are a lot of things that can be done for a short time basis by contractors that advantage the United States and advantage other countries who also hire contractors, and that any idea that we shouldn't have them I think would be unwise."
Umm....Not worry about at all
The idiots job was to twist and turn effectively when faced with the uncomfortable truth. He is no master of spin and rhetorics like the evil motherfucker Dick Cheney and other cronies, so he was fired for being too imcompetent in being unconvinving, no, a horrible bullshitter.
Rumsfeld is beside Bush, the only I have noticed (plus that other fired mofo Gonzales something, the idiot that actually couldnt lie well and was PR disaster by acting like the faschist they all are) of those shady fuckers, that are GENUINE morons that makes asses out of themselves just for existing (Like Rumsfeld did in all of his speeches). The others are way more shady and no less corrupt cronies, but they are actually smart shady snakes who can keep up appearances and spew propoganda as effortessly as they breath.
Its actually astounding how insanely daft he is in handling basic things, and he has so much power.
You dont need a tv series to remind you of the founding fathers, but I am watching HBOs new brilliant series John Adams, and besides Adams, it has every inspirational and brilliant former presidents and such of that time, making inspiring and rhetoric speeches as easy as they breath (Ok not Jefferson in public speech wise, but he was great/est in overall). And the contrast to this mumbling drooling buffoon cant be more staggering.
Its funny how one has been accostumed to his baffling retardedness, we have just taken it for granted. The comedy bussiness will lose out ALOT after he is gone. So much free material, by just showing him being HIM.
HERE WE GO!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080425/ts_nm/usa_iran_navy_dc_4
Even THIS news will push crude 2 bucks higher and up past it's resistance point of 120 per barrel.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080425/ts_nm/usa_iran_navy_dc_4
Even THIS news will push crude 2 bucks higher and up past it's resistance point of 120 per barrel.
What’s Wrong With This Picture?
From a Reader – May 7, 2008
Get a load of this – diesel fuel produced here in the U.S. is being shipped to Mexico, where it costs $2.00 per gallon, and yet it costs $4.00 per gallon, plus, here in the good ol' U.S.A.
Last January U.S. refineries shipped over 41 million gallons of diesel to Mexico. So the diesel fuel was refined in the United States, and shipped all the way to Mexico, and yet it sells for half ($2.00/per gal.) of what it does here ($4.00/per gal.)
Now, what's wrong with this picture? Why can't they just keep it here in this country in the first place, to help keep the price down? If, for example, keeping it here in the U.S. lowered the price to $3.00/per gal., that would still be $1/00/per gal. more than what they are getting now, from Mexico, plus no shipping to a foreign country.
I can't help but suspect that rampant greed, and some Enron-style scam may be at work here. In the meantime, I read that some truckers are paying $1000 to fill up their rigs, and many are on the verge of, or have already gone belly-up as a result.
More Bushonomics at work.
(Article from Oil Watchdog
"An Apache Junction, Arizona, trucking firm is fighting to stay in business in the face of $4-a-gallon diesel by driving across the border to Mexico to buy fuel where it sells for $2 a gallon.
CNN tells the story of how Romano and Son built a 500-gallon tank to haul diesel fuel back from south of the border. They made one successful trip, but were told on their second try by border officials that they can only bring 119 gallons across at a time.
Ironically, notes Insider, much of the diesel exported from the western United States goes to Mexico. Here are export figures from the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration.
As diesel was threatening to break through the $4 level in January – the most recent month for which data is available – U.S. refineries shipped 982,000 barrels or 41.2 million gallons of diesel to Mexico.
The 2008 shipments far exceed January shipments in any other year except 2000 and 2001.
Sharon Romano tells CNN she is angry with her government and with President Bush.
Does anybody wonder why?"
___________________________________________________________________
Why, Enron? Why?
From a Reader – May 7, 2008
Get a load of this – diesel fuel produced here in the U.S. is being shipped to Mexico, where it costs $2.00 per gallon, and yet it costs $4.00 per gallon, plus, here in the good ol' U.S.A.
Last January U.S. refineries shipped over 41 million gallons of diesel to Mexico. So the diesel fuel was refined in the United States, and shipped all the way to Mexico, and yet it sells for half ($2.00/per gal.) of what it does here ($4.00/per gal.)
Now, what's wrong with this picture? Why can't they just keep it here in this country in the first place, to help keep the price down? If, for example, keeping it here in the U.S. lowered the price to $3.00/per gal., that would still be $1/00/per gal. more than what they are getting now, from Mexico, plus no shipping to a foreign country.
I can't help but suspect that rampant greed, and some Enron-style scam may be at work here. In the meantime, I read that some truckers are paying $1000 to fill up their rigs, and many are on the verge of, or have already gone belly-up as a result.
More Bushonomics at work.
(Article from Oil Watchdog
"An Apache Junction, Arizona, trucking firm is fighting to stay in business in the face of $4-a-gallon diesel by driving across the border to Mexico to buy fuel where it sells for $2 a gallon.
CNN tells the story of how Romano and Son built a 500-gallon tank to haul diesel fuel back from south of the border. They made one successful trip, but were told on their second try by border officials that they can only bring 119 gallons across at a time.
Ironically, notes Insider, much of the diesel exported from the western United States goes to Mexico. Here are export figures from the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration.
As diesel was threatening to break through the $4 level in January – the most recent month for which data is available – U.S. refineries shipped 982,000 barrels or 41.2 million gallons of diesel to Mexico.
The 2008 shipments far exceed January shipments in any other year except 2000 and 2001.
Sharon Romano tells CNN she is angry with her government and with President Bush.
Does anybody wonder why?"
___________________________________________________________________
Why, Enron? Why?