[Grovenet] New to me.

[Eric Canon]

Comments follow...

--- allnutt <allnutt at verizon.net> wrote:

> I have heard similar analysis but with some
> politics of OPEC thrown in 
> along with it.
> To me, I think it would take a PhD in history
> with a specialty in the middle 
> east and also an MBA in oil company policies to
> truly understand how the the 
> feelings about the Shaw/ Eisenhower/Britain/etc
> and the US helping bring 
> Saddam to power all ties together with our own
> oil companies and where we 
> are now.  

That's never stopped us here on Grovenet! <G>

(Though I would quibble about your
> lumping Bush I with Saddam 
> because I thought it was more Regan or before
> that helped Saddam originally 
> come to power.)

I lump them together by the supporting cast:
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Richard Pearl - they
were all present and accounted for.

> 
> To me the bottom line is that if we want to
> leave the power in the hands of 
> the oil producers and and refiners we do not
> need to do anything. By our own 
> actions we have indicated that the rate they
> suck money out of our pockets 
> is acceptable. We have the technology to break
> their backs if we wish and it 
> is called a bicycle. The good news is that
> there is a growing movement to 
> use bicycles more. Yes it is a slow growing
> movement but the news about the 
> Portlanders giving up their car keys for a
> month is encouraging.  It will be 
> bigger news when it happens again in the
> dreary, wet winter months but rest 
> assured it will happen again.

I, too, am trying to use my bike more, and my
feet (walking). And I'm trying to cut down
un-necessary car trips, and even use public
transportation more frequently. Good article in
the paper today about how Oregon and Portland
lead lead the way in doing things to reduce
greenhouse emissions and our dependence on oil,
and Arnold of Californeeah has partnered with
Tony Blair's England to respond to global
warming. All little steps that move us in the
right direction.

> 
> I admire you for wanting to understand more
> about how things came to be the 
> way they are because it is obvious that we all
> need to understand it much 
> more than we do now. (That includes you, me.
> all the way up the line to Bush 
> II.)  I would also like to hear a clear and
> accurate summary of the last 
> 50-75 years but I dread the length that it will
> necessarily be in order to 
> be truthful as well. Is there such a thing as
> history Cliff notes?  I look 
> forward to reading any posts on the subject
> too.
> 
> Take heart in knowing that the most exciting
> history is the part that we are 
> writing today and for the next 10 years. 
> People are getting smarter about 
> how they want to use resources. My 17 year old
> male thinks that both sports 
> cars and electric cars are wonderful. Years ago
> people would have thought he 
> was abnormal for marveling about anything other
> than a 12 cylinder gas 
> guzzling monster. 

A couple weeks ago the hot car at Portland
International Raceway was a twelve cylinder Audi
diesel. It won the race and burned about a third
less fuel as the gas engined racers.

> But he and his friends are
> very much aware of what is 
> happening on a global scale.  The next
> generation is smarter than the last 
> and that gives me great hope that the tipping
> point toward a more 
> sustainable society is getting near. China is
> going ga ga over solar. Even 
> if it is only out of necessity it will drive
> the market toward greater solar 
> selections. (Maybe it won't be so good that the
> US is falling behind the 
> rest of the world in that technology but for
> the world as a whole, the fact 
> that somebody is driving the technology - it's
> a good thing.)
> 
> Sorry if I am expanding the topic without
> adding much to the original 
> question but you got me thinking about the
> mideast/oil in general and today 
> I was in an upbeat mood about how if we can
> just survive the next two years 
> there are hopeful signs that things can take
> off for the better when we get 
> our new president.

I, too, look to that day. Imagine how different
things would be today if Bush was not in the oval
office. The world would be so different than it
is today. I only hope things have not gone too
far in our country so that we can get back on the
path and right the ship.

> 
> Katie
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Eric Canon" <canonmetals at yahoo.com>
> To: "grovenet" <grovenet at rdrop.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 8:53 AM
> Subject: [Grovenet] New to me.
> 
> 
> >I was talking with a friend about oil, the
> middle
> > east, oil companies and the Bush
> administration,
> > and he said something that was new to me. I
> know
> > next to nothing about the subject, and I
> distrust
> > hearsay, which is what my friend shared. And
> yet,
> > the rationale behind what we are doing in the
> > middle east has never struck me as rational
> from
> > any perspective, until my friend opened his
> > mouth, so I share this with this list in
> hopes
> > someone (anyone!) might agree, or disagree,
> or
> > otherwise shed some light on this perplexing
> > subject.
> >
> > My friend told me that when the British set
> up
> > Iraq, and Iran, they gave specific
> instructions
> > to the installed rulers that they could pump
> only
> > so much oil. They didn't say to them, "Pump
> all
> > you can so that the price stays low". Rather,
> > they wanted the amount pumped to be finite so
> > that the price would stay up.
> >
> > In Iran, democracy installed a regime that
> wanted
> > to defy this British mandated limit. I don't
> > remember the name of the president of Iran or
> the
> > exact year (1954?), but it was the regime
> that
> > was supplanted by the Shaw. The Shaw, as is
> > widely known and accepted, came to power as a
> > result of a CIA coup, which Iranians resent
> to
> > this day. This happened in the Eisenhower
> years.
> > And the Shaw pumped oil at the rate
> acceptable to
> > the oil interests, with an eye on keeping the
> > price up.
> >
> > When Saddam came in, he was also told to pump
> at
> > this controlled rate, and initially he did.
> He
> > was our ally, friend to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld
> and
> > that group, willing to work for us, until he
> got
> > arrogant and greedy and went for Kuwait.
> >
> > The idea that was new to me, and that
> provided an
> > explanation for the behavior of the current
> > administration (which has mystified me), is
> that
> > the price of oil needs to be *high* so that
> these
> > folks can suck money from our pockets at an
> > acceptable rate.
> >
> > Please tear this to shreds, as I post it to
> > learn, not to assert something that may be
> false.
> > I know we have some folks on this list who,
> if
> > they have the interest or inclination, could
> > agree or disagree with a factual and accurate
> > knowledge of the history, politics and
> dynamics
> > of this area. Perhaps they will share with us
> a
> > more complete perspective than I am able to
> offer.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> > GroveNet mailing list
> > GroveNet at rdrop.com
> >
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GroveNet mailing list
> GroveNet at rdrop.com
> http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet
>