Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

I'm feeling the "warm fuzzy security" of the BuSh admin NOW!

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

N. Korea Warns U.S. of Pre-Emptive Strike
Tuesday, March 21, 2006

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188600,00.html

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea suggested Tuesday it had the ability to launch a pre-emptive attack on the United States, according to the North's official news agency.

A Foreign Ministry spokesman said the North had built atomic weapons to counter the U.S. nuclear threat.

"As we declared, our strong revolutionary might put in place all measures to counter possible U.S. pre-emptive strike," the spokesman said, according to the Korean Central News Agency. "Pre-emptive strike is not the monopoly of the United States."

Last week, the communist country warned that it had the right to launch a pre-emptive strike, saying it would strengthen its war footing before joint South Korea-U.S. military exercises scheduled for this weekend.

The spokesman also said it would be a "wise" step for the United States to cooperate on nuclear issues with North Korea in the same way it does with India.

Earlier this month, President Bush signed an accord in India that would open some of its atomic reactors to international inspections in exchange for U.S. nuclear know-how and atomic fuel.

The accord was reached even though New Delhi has not signed the international Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. North Korea has withdrawn from the treaty.

Posted by: Calabrio

Let's not address the fact it was the failed foreign policy of the Clinton administration that enabled Korea to initially develop the programs.

Or the fact guys, probably like Johnny, cried foul when Bush identified N. Korea as part of the axis of evil 4 years ago.

So are you supporting military action against N. Korea now? What is your point?

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Pakistan Test-Fires Missile Capable of Carrying Nuke
Tuesday, March 21, 2006

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188590,00.html

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan on Tuesday successfully test-fired a cruise missile that can carry a nuclear warhead and hit targets within a 310-mile range, the army said.

Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf witnessed the firing, which took place at an undisclosed location inside Pakistan and was the second test of the Hatf VII cruise missile, also known as the Babur, an army statement said.

The initial test was conducted last August on Musharraf's 62nd birthday.

"All phases of the planned trajectory were extremely successful and the missile impacted with pinpoint accuracy," the statement said.

Pakistan's nuclear-armed neighbor India was not given prior notice of the test as it did not fall under an accord that covers notification of ballistic missile tests, a senior security official said.

The Babur cruise missile can be fired from various platforms, including ground positions, surface ships and submarines, the army said.

The statement described it as a "low-flying, terrain-hugging missile with high maneuverability, pinpoint accuracy and radar avoidance features."

Musharraf was quoted as saying the firing demonstrated Pakistani proficiency in weapons production and that his government will "continue to provide all support to their endeavors in fortifying national defense."

Pakistan also possesses nuclear weapons and has fought three wars against India since the 1947 partition that led to this Islamic state's creation. But both countries have been holding peace overtures since 2004.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Let's not address the fact it was the failed foreign policy of the Clinton administration that enabled Korea to initially develop the programs.

Or the fact guys, probably like Johnny, cried foul when Bush identified N. Korea as part of the axis of evil 4 years ago.

So are you supporting military action against N. Korea now? What is your point?

My point is, BuSh and his cronies have de-focused the US from the REAL threats to our national security and diverted our attention to the lame duck that Saddam Hussein was. All this "big talk" given by BuSh about us reserving the "right" to pre-emptive strikes does NOT cause our enemies to cower in fright like BuSh and his cronies would like us to believe. It in fact results in the opposite response.

GW BuSh is not the leader of this PLANET! We are in no position to wage another war against even the weakest of our opponents because GW has effectively "shot our wad" in Iraq.

Posted by: Kbob

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

So obviously you believe that North Korea is a REAL threat to our national security. So what do you suggest we do about it? I'm very curious to your response.

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbob

So obviously you believe that North Korea is a REAL threat to our national security. So what do you suggest we do about it? I'm very curious to your response.

The current situation w/ the all the world's superpowers at odds with each other and armed w/ nukes reminds me of one of those movie scenes where a dozen or so thugs are all standing around w/ guns pointed at each other's heads waiting for someone to pull a trigger before the big shootout begins. Does anyone seriously think that this is the kind of environment that will result in long term peace or one we want our children and grand-children to grow up in? NO.

What needs to happen for long-term peace is for all the world's superpowers to put their egos aside, sit down and crack a cold one, acknowledge this situation, find some common ground and discuss HOW we are all going to get along together on this planet. Diplomacy can result in mutual respect and understanding. The US needs to quit thinking like they are the playground bully or "world savior" and start being the world leader towards PEACE. The UN was supposed to facilitate this role, and it seems its due time for a shakeup there. Maybe we need to develop a common long-term human goal (like populating the moon or something) that all countries can share in, with benefits proportional to contributions to the cause. Ultimately, we need to develop and foster "Team Earth". The US also needs to realize that the countries of this planet do NOT all aspire to be just like us, and we have to let them sink or swim in their own internal struggles towards internal peace. We can lead the horse to the water, but we cannot make it drink.

I can appreciate the current administration's goal of "spreading democracy" and the GWOT. But we cannot force democracy down other countries throats, and we need to be more specific on what targets this GWOT is focused on. A "war on terror" is much too ambiguous, just like the "war on drugs" has proven to be a huge failure. Too much time, energy and resources ends up being spent on the wrong, least effective targets. There is nothing wrong w/ drawing lines in the sand, as long as those lines are mutually agreed upon. If we attempt to draw those lines unilaterally, we should expect to have one of those nukes pointed at our heads.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

I can appreciate the current administration's goal of "spreading democracy" and the GWOT. But we cannot force democracy down other countries throats, and we need to be more specific on what targets this GWOT is focused on.

How many Iraqis voted in the last election. Something like 75%. How many voted in our last election? Right around 50% maybe. We've been practicing democracy for over 200 years. They have been at it less than 1 year. So don't give me the crap about shoving democracy down people's throats. People want it. People need it. We are not doing enough if you ask me to 'shove democracy' down people's throats.

Show me a country that can cause problems and prevent your worldwide nirvana and I'll show you a country that is not democratically free.

Russia - nope.
China - nope.
North Korea - nope.
Pakistan - nope.
Iran - nope.
Half of Africa - nope.
Venezuela - nope.

Lefties just can see the solution staring them straight in the eyes. Democracy and Capitalism WORKS. We need to spread it faster and farther if you ask me. The Internet will certainly help things along.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

What needs to happen for long-term peace is for all the world's superpowers to put their egos aside, sit down and crack a cold one, acknowledge this situation, find some common ground and discuss HOW we are all going to get along together on this planet.

Well, well, well. Look who finally peeped out of his closet to tell us what he really thinks: A bona fide, card-carrying member of the new American Castrati. It's been well-documented throughout history that this is known as stinking thinking, as evidenced by Neville Chamberlain, who tried to appease the enemy in the 30's. Is anyone NOT laughing as hard as I am?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Diplomacy can result in mutual respect and understanding.

Diplomacy never averted a war. Diplomacy is for the war's aftermath, when you tell the losing side how it's going to be. To sinister wackos like Ahmadinejad and bin Laden and Saddam, diplomacy is seen as a weakness.
Those who suggest it are anti-war peaceniks who quail at the sight of danger and hate the military, while basking in the protection it provides. Typical of this is the ungrateful speech made by the recently RESCUED (by the military, no less) so-called 'peace activists' (read traitorous America-haters) you can read about in the papers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

The US needs to quit thinking like they are the playground bully or "world savior" and start being the world leader towards PEACE.

Interesting how you refer to the US as 'they.' As though you are anti-American. I see you live in Indiana, but you sound like you'd rather not be here. Nevertheless, what you said is nonsense. I can name several world bullies for you if you like, starting with Saddam (read Kuwait) or Ahmadinejad (read Israel wiped off the map), and refer you to 9/11, where WE were attacked first. But then again, that's all our own fault, too, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

The UN was supposed to facilitate this role, and it seems its due time for a shakeup there.

Note later how I show you contradicting yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Maybe we need to develop a common long-term human goal (like populating the moon or something) that all countries can share in, with benefits proportional to contributions to the cause.

Yeah, let's go populate the moon. Why don't you go first? And then we can live in gingerbread houses and eat candy all day and fly around on pixie dust. (rolls eyes in disgust at the castrati idea)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Ultimately, we need to develop and foster "Team Earth".

Uh, isn't the name for that the United Nations? How's that going so far?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

The US also needs to realize that the countries of this planet do NOT all aspire to be just like us, and we have to let them sink or swim in their own internal struggles towards internal peace...

How about Rwanda? You said the UN needs to be more involved, yet Clinton and the UN stood idly by while millions were murdered. I guess your statement means that you think it's all right to let that happen.

CAN YOU PICK A SIDE? You contradict yourself so transparently it's easy to spot in a second.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Who's forcing democracy? This is already answered by Bryan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

A "war on terror" is much too ambiguous, just like the "war on drugs" has proven to be a huge failure.

What would you like to call it? The war on Islamo-fascism? The war on insurgency? The war on all those who wish to export and force-feed terror around the world? Get a grip.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Too much time, energy and resources ends up being spent on the wrong, least effective targets.

Ok, smart guy, name the most effective targets and when we should be attacking them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

There is nothing wrong w/ drawing lines in the sand, as long as those lines are mutually agreed upon.

You just said we need to sit down and be diplomatic, and now you're saying draw a line in the sand??? And NOW you're saying agree mutually on where the line is??? How does that work?

"Ok, Mr. Dictator (insert name here), we're not going to take any more of this sh!t. If you do it one more time, we're gonna - uh - well, what would you suggest?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

If we attempt to draw those lines unilaterally, we should expect to have one of those nukes pointed at our heads.

You mean, the opposite of what Reagan did? Because he undid all the damage that Carter did? By pushing defense and freaking out the Soviets, we got attacked and nuked by them? No, they folded, REMEMBER? Don't you read any history?

Yeah, we should just bury our heads in the sand and stop protecting ourselves, and then the world will see that we mean nobody any harm, and then they will VOLUNTARILY drop all their weapons and start beating them into plowshares, and say,

"Gosh! I had no idea those Americans were so reasonable! We've been doing this all wrong the whole time! Let's all just live in peace and love and even try to find a way to love the Israelis! Yeah, that's the ticket!"

Excuse me while I go laugh to myself at your Castrati ideas.

Posted by: Kbob

Johnny, while I do agree with your sentiment, I do not agree that it will work. The UN has proven to be ineffective. And we can't change the UN because we (the US) are only 1 vote in that organization. But it would be nice if everyone played by the rules, so to speak. Unfortunately, they don't. And the only organization that looks out for the US is our government. I do appreciate your good faith gesture of answering my question, though.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Well, well, well. Look who finally peeped out of his closet to tell us what he really thinks: A bona fide, card-carrying member of the new American Castrati.

Yup, Fossten is back........................

Posted by: JohnnyBz00LS

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Yup, Fossten is back........................

Yeah, speaking of peeking out of the closet.

Fossten, I see your are still up to your old tactics of triffeling back-handed personal attacks, putting words in my mouth and tired RWW rhetoric, save it. Your whole spew of criticism is misfounded on the premise that the US is the only country that has to do something. For any of this to work, everyone has to step up to the negotiating table. Following your own version of "stinking thinking", the only way to achieve world peace is to bomb everyone else off the planet so the US can "rule the world". Do you really think we could ever get away with that and the end result would be actually BE "world peace"?? You are a simple minded joke. Go back to your closet, we were having nice civil debates here just fine without you.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Yeah, speaking of peeking out of the closet.

Fossten, I see your are still up to your old tactics of triffeling back-handed personal attacks, putting words in my mouth and tired RWW rhetoric, save it. Your whole spew of criticism is misfounded on the premise that the US is the only country that has to do something. For any of this to work, everyone has to step up to the negotiating table. Following your own version of "stinking thinking", the only way to achieve world peace is to bomb everyone else off the planet so the US can "rule the world". Do you really think we could ever get away with that and the end result would be actually BE "world peace"?? You are a simple minded joke. Go back to your closet, we were having nice civil debates here just fine without you.

Talk about putting words in people's mouths; you definitely win the prize. Good luck getting evil wackos like the aforementioned dictators to the negotiating table. The FACT that you WON'T get these people to the table PROVES that diplomacy can't work because it won't happen. And even when it does, they lie and violate treaties left and right while we, the suckers, abide by them with our open honesty, while they cheat behind closed doors. The Soviets did that constantly, faking us out for decades, until Reagan bankrupted them by building up our forces so strongly that they couldn't afford to compete.

The U.S. DOES have to do something: We have to protect ourselves. People like you want to leave us unprotected and vulnerable, if only to somehow recapture political power. That is unconscionable. If you want to continue living in this dreamworld of "Can't we all just get along," go live in France where they burn cars every night and stop bashing the U.S.

Oh, and as for your parting shot about world peace, get a clue and realize that there will NEVER be world peace as long as there are countries. Being a realist and a student of history, I know that the only thing that is certain is that if we show ourselves to be strong in defense, we will protect ourselves. We can't make other countries like us, but we can keep them from hurting us. Sorry, your crusader "save-the-world" mentality is unrealistic and tired and old and irrelevant.

Posted by: MonsterMark

You want to see peace in the world? Wait till we actually start running out of oil.

Peace...not in my lifetime, more likely end of the world.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

Wait till we actually start running out of oil.

You said it there..... That's why we as a people need to pressure the powers that be and push for alternative fuels now, not in 50+ years. Compression engine powered cars (diesels) running on fuels made from corn or soybeans is one of many ways to go. Imagine the economy if we grew and refined our own fuel.

I wholeheartedly agree with your 'world peace' assessment, unfortunate as it may be, it's not going to happen anytime soon.

(Sorry to hi-jack the thread and go off topic Johnny, but it was kinda going in the gutter at the end anyhow)

Posted by: TheDude

Delete please, did a double post, sorry.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Actually, you're incorrect on 2 counts. First of all, alternative fuels bring more complications and expense than the current fuel, which is oil. Relatively cheap, it's not going away any time soon. In fact, if your dem leaders in Congress would just let us drill our own wells, there would be such a glut of oil worldwide that the price would plummet.

Secondly, the supply of oil worldwide has been documented NOT to be decreasing, but actually INCREASING, despite the high levels of consumption and the OPEC nations' attempts to strangle the production and keep prices high. The Cato Institute did a scholarly, technical report on this, which I can produce, which details this FACT.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I'm talking about the long term effect, not the short. Sure it would be pricey to change the infrastructure initially and I'm not suggesting it happen over-night, but in the long run, having cleaner in-house made fuels would be a great thing, think about foreign policy if we didn't need to depend on foreigners for our life’s blood.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

Secondly, the supply of oil worldwide has been documented NOT to be decreasing, but actually INCREASING, despite the high levels of consumption and the OPEC nations' attempts to strangle the production and keep prices high. The Cato Institute did a scholarly, technical report on this, which I can produce, which details this FACT.

I've never heard of that before, is this rock solid and indisputable? Would you post a link to it, sounds interesting?

Posted by: fossten

I'll post a link when I get home, I'm at work now.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by fossten

I'll post a link when I get home, I'm at work now.

Thank you....... It would mean that more crude is formed on a daily basis than is pumped out, I'm curious to see how that is possible.

Posted by: fossten

Nobody knows how it's possible, just that it is happening...

This isn't what I was looking for, but hopefully I'll find it later. This should be a start, though.

Oil Reserves Are Increasing
by George Crispin

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/crispin8.html

Eugene Island is an underwater mountain located about 80 miles off the coast of Louisiana in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1973 oil was struck and off-shore platform Eugene 330 erected. The field began production at 15,000 barrels a day, then gradually fell off, as is normal, to 4,000 barrels a day in 1989, Then came the surprise; it reversed itself and increased production to 13,000 barrels a day. Probable reserves have been increased to 400 million barrels from 60 million. The field appears to be filling from below and the crude coming up today is from a geological age different from the original crude, which leads to the speculation that the world has limitless supplies of petroleum.

This really interested some scientists. Thomas Gold, astronomer and professor emeritus of Cornell held for years that oil is actually renewable primordial syrup continually manufactured by the earth under ultra hot conditions and tremendous pressures. This substance migrates upward picking up bacteria that attack it making it appear to have an organic origin, i.e., come from dinosaurs and vegetation. As best I have found so far Russian scientists support his position, at least that petroleum is of primordial origin. There is now plenty of evidence around proving the presence of methane in our universe. It is easy to see it as a part of the formation of the earth. Under the right conditions of temperature and pressure, it converts to more complex hydrocarbons.

Roger Andersen, an oceanographer and executive director of Columbia’s Energy Research Center proposed studying the behavior of this reservoir. The underwater landscape around Eugene Island is weird, cut with faults and fissures that belch gas and oil. The field is operated by PennzEnergy Co. Andersen proposed to study the action of the sea bottom around the mountain and the field at its top and persuaded the U S Dept of Energy to ante up ten million which was matched by a consortium of oil giants including Chevron, Exxon, and Tex Corp. This work began about the time 3-D seismic technology was introduced to oil exploration. Anderson was able to stack 3D images resulting in a 4D image that showed the reservoir in 3 spatial dimensions and enabled researchers to track the movement of oil. Their most stunning find was a deep fault at a bottom corner of the computer scan that showed oil literally gushing in. "We could see the stream," says Andersen. "It wasn’t even debated that it was happening."

Work continued for five years until funds ran out and they were unable to continue. With the world having 40 years of proven reserves in hand it is difficult to interest the major oil producers in much exploration, let alone something done merely for research, and so far from the current accepted theory of a fossil origin for oil.

Similar occurrences have been seen at other Gulf Of Mexico fields, at the Cook Inlet oil field, at oil fields in Uzbekistan, and it is possible this accounts for the longevity of the Saudi Arabian fields where few new finds have been made, yet reserves have doubled while the fields have been exploited mercilessly for 50 years.

Not only can the doom and gloomers not show us running out of the natural resources we recycle, but now there appears to be good odds of a limitless supply of petroleum working its way up to where we can capture it.

A caveat: Gold’s theory is not yet accepted by all scientists, probably all the more reason to trust it.

Posted by: Vitas

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

I wholeheartedly agree with your 'world peace' assessment, unfortunate as it may be, it's not going to happen anytime soon.

Russia gave Iraq intelligence: Pentagon report

By Will Dunham
Fri Mar 24, 5:07 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Russia's ambassador in Baghdad gave intelligence on U.S. military movements to Iraq's government in the opening days of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, a Pentagon report stated on Friday, quoting from captured Iraqi documents.

The unclassified 210-page report by the U.S. military's Joint Forces Command cited an April 2, 2003, document from the Iraqi minister of foreign affairs to President Saddam Hussein as stating the Russian ambassador to Baghdad had funneled strategic intelligence on U.S. plans to Saddam's government.

The document was written about two weeks after the invasion but before U.S. soldiers and Marines entered the capital.

Another Iraqi document, dated March 24, 2003, referred to Russian "sources" inside the U.S. military's Central Command headquarters in Qatar.

The allegations about the actions of Russia were based on captured documents from an Iraqi government on the verge of being toppled, and the report did not present any further documentation of the allegations.

The intelligence provided by the ambassador, the report stated, was that U.S. forces were moving to cut off Baghdad from the south, east and north, and the heaviest concentration of troops -- 12,000 of them, plus 1,000 vehicles -- was near Kerbala, 68 miles southwest of the capital.

The ambassador also told the Iraqis that "the Americans were going to concentrate on bombing in and around Baghdad, cutting the road to Syria and Jordan and creating 'chaos and confusion' to force the residents of Baghdad to flee," the report stated.

It said the U.S. assault on Baghdad would not begin before the arrival of the Army's 4th Infantry Division -- which Turkey had barred from entering Iraq from the north via Turkish territory -- around April 15. In fact, Baghdad fell about a week before that date.

"Significantly, the regime was also receiving intelligence from the Russians that fed suspicions that the attack out of Kuwait was merely a diversion," the report stated, citing the March 24 document.

OIL BEHIND RUSSIAN MOVES?

The purpose of the report was to assess the Iraqi view of events from March to May 2003, based on interviews with senior Iraqi officials and numerous documents.

Army Brig. Gen. Anthony Cucolo of U.S. Joint Forces Command told a briefing he viewed Russia's actions as "driven by economic interests." The report noted Russian business interests in Iraqi oil.

Cucolo said the intelligence from Russia "was only a small part of Saddam's calculus on the decisions he should make and the actions he should take."

"It was (Saddam) counting on other members of the international community to assist him in any way that he saw fit to get what he wanted," Cucolo said.

The report said the March 24 document stated, "The information that the Russians have collected from their sources inside the American Central Command in Doha is that the United States is convinced that occupying Iraqi cities are (sic) impossible, and that they have changed their tactic," to avoid entering cities.

The report did not contain allegations reported by The New York Times last month that German intelligence agents in Baghdad obtained a copy of Saddam's plan to defend the Iraqi capital and passed it to U.S. commanders before the invasion.

There is a longer, classified version of the report. Officials said on Friday they could not confirm or deny whether the allegations were contained in that version.

The report painted Saddam as convinced the United States would not launch a ground invasion that would seriously threaten his rule, believing the Americans too squeamish about casualties, and that an internal coup was a bigger threat.

The report also dealt with the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. President George W. Bush cited the threat posed by such weapons as the prime justification for the invasion. No such weapons ever were found.

The report said that for months after the invasion, some senior officials of Saddam's government continued to think it was possible Iraq had a WMD capability hidden away.

It stated that "the public confidence of so many Western governments, especially based on CIA information, made at least one senior (Iraqi) official believe the contention that Iraq possessed such weapons might be true," citing a classified intelligence report.

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Thank you....... It would mean that more crude is formed on a daily basis than is pumped out, I'm curious to see how that is possible.

All right, I found it. It's an acrobat file, and it's too big to upload.

I'll copy/paste, but it's in column form, so it's a little annoying to read, but it's all there. It's a bit scholarly, so hang in there.

M. A. Adelman is professor of economics emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. He is the author of several books, including The Economics of Petroleum Supply:
Selected Papers 1962–1993 (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1993) and The Genie Out
of the Bottle: World Oil Since 1970 (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995). More recently,
he published “World Oil Production and Prices 1947-2000” in the Quarterly Review of
Economics and Finance (Vol. 42).Behind the myths of an oil crisis and an oil weapon is a very
real danger posed by a clumsy and shortsighted cartel.
The Real Oil Problem
BY M. A. ADELMAN
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

ENERGY

According to “conventional
wisdom,” humanity’s need for oil cannot
be met and a gap will soon emerge
between demand and supply. That gap
will broaden as the economies of Europe,
Japan, and several emerging nations grow
and increase their energy needs. The
United States is at the mercy of Middle Eastern exporters who
can use the “oil weapon” to cripple the U.S. economy. Unless we
increase domestic oil production radically or cut consumption,
or nations like Russia quickly exploit recently discovered oil
fields, the United States will find itself in an oil crisis.
But conventional wisdom “knows” many things that are not
true. There is not, and never has been, an oil crisis or gap. Oil
reserves are not dwindling. The Middle East does not have and
has never had any “oil weapon.” How fast Russian oil output
grows is of minor but real interest. How much goes to the United
States or Europe or Japan — or anywhere else, for that matter
— is of no interest because it has no effect on prices we pay
nor on the security of supply.
The real problem we face over oil dates from after 1970: a
strong but clumsy monopoly of mostly Middle Eastern
exporters cooperating as opec. The biggest exporters have
acted in concert to limit supply and thus raise oil’s price — possibly
too high even for their own good. The output levels they
establish by trial-and-error are very unstable. opec has damaged
the world economy, not by malice, but because its members
cannot help but do so.
The group’s power is slowly decreasing, but I do not see it
ending anytime soon. In 1979 and again in 2003, the consuming
nations made a public unconditional surrender to the
current cartel. They may or may not know what they are doing.
To see the harm that opechas done and can continue to do,
we need to dispense with the myths about an oil gap and an oil
weapon. Once we do that, we will begin to see that many of the
problems in the world oil market are the result of this shortsighted
cartel, as well as the failure of importers to seize opportunities
to weaken it.

IS OIL RUNNING OUT?

Oil is not the first fossil fuel that conventional wisdom has
identified as nearing exhaustion. Even before 1800, the worry
in Europe was that coal — the supposed foundation of their
greatness — would run out. European production actually did
peak in 1913, and is nearly negligible today. Is that the result
of exhaustion? Hardly — there are billions of tons in the
ground in Europe. But it would cost too much for the Europeans
to dig it out. At a price that would cover cost, there is
no demand. Hence, the billions of tons of European coal are
worthless and untouched. The amount of a mineral that is in
the ground has no meaning apart from its cost of extraction
and the demand for it.
In 1875, John Strong Newberry, the chief geologist of the
state of Ohio, predicted that the supply of oil would soon run
out. The alarm has been sounded repeatedly in the many
decades since. In 1973, State Department analyst James Akins,
then the chief U.S. policymaker on oil, published “The Oil Crisis:
This time the wolf is here,” in which he called for more
domestic production and for improved relations with oil-producing
nations in the Middle East. In 1979, President Jimmy
Carter, echoing a CIA assessment, said that oil wells “were drying
up all over the world.” Just last year, the New York Times
reported that “oil reserves are expected to dwindle in the
decades ahead,” while the International Energy Agency fore-
casted that oil output will grow in the Persian Gulf between
now and 2030, but it will decline elsewhere.
The doomsday predictions have all proved false. In 2003,
world oil production was 4,400 times greater than it was in Newberry’s
day, but the price per unit was probably lower. Oil
reserves and production even outside the Middle East are greater
today than they were when Akins claimed the wolf was here.
World output of oil is up a quarter since Carter’s “drying up”
pronouncement, but Middle East exports peaked in 1976–77.
Despite all those facts, the predictions of doom keep on
coming.

THE REAL OIL CRISIS

The true crisis (or whatever it is) started in 1973–74 when a dozen
mostly Middle Eastern nations mutually agreed to cut their output.
They have been constraining production
ever since. They lock away and
sterilize the cheapest oil in the world to
raise the price and their revenues.
The resulting effects have prompted
a series of government efforts to
avert an oil crisis. As a New York Times
editorial observed last September,
“Every president starting with Richard
Nixon and the 1973 oil embargo has
promised to reduce America’s ravenous
appetite for oil while investing
heavily in new energy sources.” Few
members of those administrations disagreed
with the Carter belief in an oil
gap and an energy gap — and each
administration has advocated a broad
range of energy policies and government
spending.
The Carter White House advanced
legislation discouraging the use of natural
gas for “low-end” uses like power
generation, even though natural gas is
plentiful and burns cleaner than oil or
coal. Instead, the administration advocated
tax credits and subsidies for the
use of synthetic fuels and for expansion
of the use of coal. The Internal Revenue
Service recently confirmed that the $20
billion-a-year “spray and pray” credit,
which encourages the production of a
supposed synthetic fuel by spraying
fuel oil on purportedly unusable coal
dust to make usable lumps, is still in
place. The current Energy Bill — or
“Energy Barbecue” — will create all
sorts of new handouts, vested interests,
and jobs that will be hotly defended in
later years. The more wasteful a law, the
more defenders it creates.
From the Nixon White House to the
present, all administrations have
approached oil and energy with command-and-control policies.
None of them attempted to analyze the problems using
the price mechanism. “Not enough” oil was being produced,
and that problem was too important to leave to a sloppy price
system.

WHEN WILL THE OIL RUN OUT?

It is commonly asked, when will the world’s supply of oil be
exhausted? The best one-word answer: Never. Since the human
race began to use minerals, there has been eternal struggle —
stingy nature versus inquisitive mankind. The payoff is the
price of the mineral, and mankind has won big, so far.
However, alarmists point to world oil prices and claim that
what has happened “so far” will not continue much longer.
They might have a point — if the world oil market featured sev
eral different, competitive suppliers. But instead, it is dominated
by a monopoly supplier, so the higher prices in themselves
mean nothing. To understand this, one needs a quick course
in resource economics.
Minerals are produced from reserves, which are mineral
deposits discovered and identified as able to be extracted profitably.
Are oil reserves dwindling? Is it getting harder to find or
create them? Conventional wisdom says: Of course. But once
again, conventional wisdom is wrong.
Reserves are a type of warehouse inventory, the result of
investment. One cannot make a decision to drill and operate
an oil well without a forecast of the well’s production. Moreover,
as the well’s output falls over time with decreasing pressure,
the unit operating cost of the well’s output will rise. When
the operating cost rises above the price that the oil will fetch
in the marketplace, the well will be shut down. Whatever oil is
left underground is not worth producing, given current prices
and technology. The well’s proved reserves are the forecast
cumulative profitable output, not the total amount of oil that
is believed to be in the ground.
In the United States and a few other countries, a nation’s
“proved reserves” is the programmed cumulative output from
existing and pending wells. In other countries, the definition
of “reserves” varies, and the number is often worthless. At its
best (e.g., the estimates released by the U.S. Geological Survey),
the “probable reserve” is an estimate of what will eventually be
produced in a given area, out of existing and new wells, with
current technique and knowledge, and at prevailing prices.

ULTIMATE KNOWLEDGE?

But the size of “known reserves” is
not an adequate forecast of eventual production, unless we
assume that in oil, as in Kansas City, “they’ve gone about as far
as they can go.” Watching “Oklahoma!” we smile at those who
actually believe this — and we should likewise smile at those
who think they know how much oil will be extracted from a
well or in an area. To predict ultimate reserves, we need an accurate
prediction of future science and technology. To know ultimate
reserves, we must first have ultimate knowledge. Nobody
knows this, and nobody should pretend to know.
The dwindling of reserves is a legend firmly believed because
it seems so obvious. Assume any number for the size of
reserves. From it, subtract a few years’ current output. The conclusion
is absolutely sure: Reserves are dwindling; the wolf is
getting closer. In time, production must cease. Oil in the
ground becomes constantly more valuable — so much so that
a gap forms between how much oil we want and how much we
are able to afford because of scarcity. Civilization cannot continue
without oil, so something must be done.
And indeed, in some times and places the oil does run down.
Output in the Appalachian United States had peaked by 1900,
and output in Texas peaked in 1972. But the “running out”
vision never works globally. At the end of 1970, non-opec
countries had about 200 billion remaining in proved reserves.
In the next 33 years, those countries produced 460 billion barrels
and now have 209 billion “remaining.” The producers kept
using up their inventory, at a rate of about seven percent per
year, and then replacing it. The opec countries started with
about 412 billion in proved reserves, produced 307 billion, and
now have about 819 billion left. Their reserve numbers are
shaky, but clearly they had — and have — a lot more inventory
than they used up. Saudi Arabia alone has over 80 known
fields and exploits only nine. Of course, there are many more
fields, known and unknown. The Saudis do not invest to discover,
develop, and produce more oil because more production
would bring down world prices.Growing knowledge lowers cost, unlocks new deposits in
existing areas, and opens new areas for discovery. In 1950, there
was no offshore oil production; it was highly “unconventional”
oil. Some 25 years later, offshore wells were being drilled in
water 1,000 feet deep. And 25 years after that, oilmen were
drilling in water 10,000 feet deep — once technological
advancement enabled them to drill without the costly steel
structure that had earlier made deep-water drilling too expensive.
Today, a third of all U.S. oil production comes from offshore
wells. Given current knowledge and technique, the U.S.
Geological Survey predicts offshore oil will ultimately comprise
50 percent of U.S. production.
The offshore reserves did not just happen to come along in
time. In an old Mae West movie, an admirer of one of her rings
declared, “Goodness, what a diamond!” She coldly replied,
“Goodness had nothing to do with it.” Likewise, offshore production
did not begin and develop by providence or chance, but
only when new knowledge made investment profitable. And
the high potential economic rewards were a powerful inducement
for the development of the new knowledge. Offshore
drillers found a new way to tap oil beneath the deep ocean. Oilmen
in Canada and Venezuela discovered how to extract oil
from those nations’ oil sand deposits. As new techniques
decreased the cost of extraction¸ some of the oil slowly began
to be booked into reserves.

NEW RESERVES

Worldwide, is it getting harder and more
expensive to find new deposits and develop them into reserves?
Up to about 15 years ago, the cost data clearly said no. Since
then, much of the relevant data are no longer published.
To make up for that lack, Campbell Watkins and I tabulated
the sales value of proved reserves sold in-ground in the United
States. Our results are a window on the value of oil reserves
anywhere in which entrepreneurs can freely invest. (That rules
out the opec countries and a few more.) If the cost of finding
and developing new reserves were increasing, the value per barrel
of already-developed reserves would rise with it. Over the
period 1982–2002, we found no sign of that.

Think of it this way: Anyone could make a bet on rising inground
values — borrow money to buy and hold a barrel of
oil for later sale. With ultimate reserves decreasing every year,
the value of oil still in the ground should grow yearly. The
investor’s gain on holding the oil should be at least enough to
offset the borrowing cost plus risk. In fact, we find that holding
the oil would draw a negative return even before allowing
for risk.

To sum up: There is no indication that non-opec oil is getting
more expensive to find and develop. Statements about nonopec
nations’ “dwindling reserves” are meaningless or wrong.

A SI N G L E WO R L D MARKET

Another tenet of conventional wisdom is that the United States’
energy supply is precarious because we must buy oil from Middle
Eastern nations who do not like us. This tenet is no more
accurate than the other “wisdoms” we have considered so far.
Most oil moves by sea, and ships can be diverted from one
destination to another relatively easily. Moreover, much additional
oil can be diverted from land shipment to sea. Hence, it
is fairly easy to reroute shipments of oil from nations that have
a sufficient supply to nations that are experiencing a shortage.
It is only a minor exaggeration to say that every barrel in the
world competes with every other. If one is blocked, another can
replace it.
One cannot help reading a lot about how “fortunate” it is
that new fields on Sakhalin Island will soon export to nearby
“oil-starved Japan,” or that West Africa can do the same for the
“oil-hungry” U.S. East Coast. Such statements sound important
but make no sense. Higher output helps consumers and lower
output hurts them, no matter where the oil is from or where
it goes. Exports will go to the more profitable destination. To
the buyer, the distance from exporter to importer makes only
a minor difference in total cost.

THE “OIL WEAPON”

Whether a supplier loves or hates a customer
(or vice versa) does not matter because, in the world oil
market, a seller cannot isolate any customer and a buyer cannot
isolate any supplier. But conventional wisdom (there is that
term again) is that Middle Eastern nations wield an “oil weapon”
that they can use to punish the United States or any other
nation.
In support of this belief, many people point to the 1973 “oil
embargo” against the United States by Arab members of opec
(except Iraq — Saddam Hussein profited by it). Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger cruised around the Middle East many
times to negotiate an “end” to it. Ten years later, he explained
that the significance of the “embargo” was psychological, not
economic. Recently, the London Economist quoted approvingly
what I said in July 1973: If an embargo was declared, it would
have no effect because diversion would nullify it. And so it was.
The embargo against the United States never happened, and
could not happen. The miserable, mile-long lines outside of
U.S. gasoline stations resulted from domestic price controls
and allocations, not from any embargo. We ought not blame
the Arabs for what we did to ourselves.
The Arab and non-Arab cutbacks in output, then and later,
were real though small. If we look at the amounts actually available,
the United States did a little worse than Japan, a little better
than Western Europe. (I think those differences are accidental
results of imperfect statistics, but that is another story.)
The real moral is this: It does not matter how much oil is produced
domestically and how much is imported. Presidents may
declare that there is an “urgent need” to cut imports and boost
“energy independence” — no one ever lost political support by
seeing evil and blaming foreigners. The facts are less dramatic.
Imports do not make any importer “dependent” on any particular
exporter, or even all of them taken together. Therefore,
direct or indirect spending to reduce imports is a waste of
resources. Some public support of research into energy may
bring us knowledge worth paying for, but public outlays for
energy development are a waste.
So, if the ills are imaginary, what is the true problem with
the world oil market?

T H E WO R L D MONOPOLY

The oil “crisis” started in 1971–1973 when a dozen producer
nations agreed to raise oil prices by cutting their output. They
continue that cooperation today. Their cost of expanding output,
which is mostly the return on the needed investment, is a
small fraction of the price that they charge for oil.
The price of oil should be relatively stable. Compare the
basic conditions with natural gas: Oil users are much more
numerous and diversified. Seasonal fluctuations are milder, and
storage costs lower. In fact, for 25 years after World War II, the
real (inflation-adjusted) price of oil fluctuated very little. As in
many industries, there was short-run volatility — up and
down. Oil prices jumped in the Middle East crises of 1956 and
1967, but then fell back quickly. Some would ascribe the price
stability to the fact that most oil then being sold worldwide was
controlled by a few big companies, the “Seven Sisters.” However,
the real price fell by about two thirds from 1945 to 1970.
The Seven Sisters’ control, if any, was very limited.
But in the period 1970–1980, the real price rose by about 1,300
percent. From 1980 to 1986, it dropped by about two thirds. It
was fairly steady in 1986–1997, fell further in 1997–1998, and
then tripled after February 1999. Why have there been such huge
ups and downs in recent years, and why — unlike in the old days
— did the changes not reverse quickly?

SPECULATION?

Any price is affected by the guesses of speculators.
The professionals are in business to make money on
price changes. But every producer, refiner, consumer, transporter,
etc., who buys or sells ahead today in fear or in hope of
Presidents may declare an “urgent need” to cut imports
and boost “energy independence”—no one ever lost
political support by seeing evil and blaming foreigners.

E N E R G Y

a different price tomorrow is speculating.
Speculation affects cartel prices more than competitive
prices. Oil prices fluctuate more because betting on price must
include calculations about not just supply and demand, but also
about opec’s quota decisions, plus the members’ fidelity to
their promises. Hence, the world oil market is less predictable,
more volatile, and more herky-jerky. In the huge oil price spike
of late 1973, the change in supply was almost trivial yet the
price effects were massive. The “crisis” was a classic case of
buyer’s panic.

THE CARTEL

OPEC is a forum whose members meet from
time to time to reach decisions on price or on output. Fixing
either one determines the other. There have in effect been several
opeccartels since the countries first banded together more
than three decades ago. The members re-constitute the cartel
as needed to meet current problems.
In every oil price upheaval, there has been persistent excess
capacity (which could not happen under competitive pricing).
Even if we started with zero excess, every output reduction
itself creates excess capacity among the opec countries. They
refrain from expanding output in order to raise prices and profits.
Recently, we have heard high prices explained by low inventories.
That is true — the cartel cuts production, which lowers
inventories, which raises prices. Because each member’s cost
is far below the price, output could expand many fold if each
producer followed its own interest to expand output, which
would lower prices and revenues. Only group action can
restrain each one from expanding output.
The spike in oil prices since 1999 provides an excellent illustration.
The Clinton and Bush administrations both applauded
opec for setting a price target of $23–28 a barrel. But opec
actions have kept the price persistently above even the upper
limit, with the usual contemptuous indifference to arguments
from U.S. cabinet secretaries. Why so?

TWO PROBLEMS

Any cartel must decide what price and output
to fix for maximum profit. A higher price would cost them
money because purchasers would cut consumption too far.
Moreover, the price must eventually be updated, whenever supply
and demand change enough to make corrective action
essential. Opinions vary as to what is the right price for maximum
profit, and opec has often had to find its right price
through trial and error. The cartel made a dreadful mistake in
1980 when it pushed the price of oil to $40 a barrel (which is
nearly $80 today, in inflation-adjusted terms). The member
nations expected the price to go higher still, but the resulting
reduction in demand forced opec to bring the price back
down. Hence, one great problem with operating a cartel is finding
— and maintaining —the right price.
The second great problem is how to allocate sales among
cartelists. Each opec member could reap a windfall by cheating
and producing over quota because the cost of production
is so far below the market price. But, if some cartel members
were to defect, output would climb and the prices — and windfall
profits — would fall.
In 1980, Saudi Arabia (for the first and last time) unilaterally
restricted its oil production. The kingdom let its cartel partners
produce freely, tending to lower the world oil price. The
Saudis decided only to make up the difference between the
intended total cartel output and the sum of what the others produced;
as other cartel members raised their production levels,
the Saudis further lowered theirs.
They soon found that they could not hold the line without
help. If the Saudis alone restricted output, too much oil would
be produced and prices would fall. They called on the others
to observe their quotas. The others preferred to keep producing
and profiting at the Saudis’ expense. In late1985, Saudi
exports approached zero, and they finally announced that they
would match anyone else’s prices. It took over eight months for
the cartel ranks to re-form, and by then prices had fallen by two
thirds from 1980 levels.
Since then, the Saudis have often repeated that they would
never again cut output without prior assurances that the others
would cut along with them. They no longer have any illusion
that they can regulate the industry on their own. (So why
do people in consuming countries believe that?)
As history shows, deciding on the group action is not easy.
There usually is a game of chicken, until some agreement is
achieved. Next comes mutual surveillance, to see who cheats
how much. During the period 1986–1996, the price of oil
stayed around only one-third of the 1980 highs, and was much
more stable. But even then¸ opeclost market share. Non-opec
oil-exporting nations expanded their production because the
current price provided a return on their investment in new
capacity.
At the moment, the cartel has good reason to be pleased.
Beginning in 1999 and with the half-hearted cooperation of
Russia, Mexico, and Norway, opecwas able to constrain world
oil production and thus raise prices. The target at first was
$17–21 per barrel, then $22–28. Since 2000, the price has rarely
been below $28, and in December 2003 was over $30. There
was excess capacity among opec members even before the
output cuts, and more afterward. They have restrained the
excess, observed their quotas, and faithfully colluded to maintain
the price.

F U T U R E P R IC E S A N D PRODUCT ION

opec’s constant concern has been to restrict supply and resist
downward price pressure. Whenever they forgot this, they
were brutally reminded — as in 1980–85 and in 1997. But
always, they were exhorted from inside and outside the organization
to look to the bright horizon of the near future. Very
soon, they were told, non-opec output would fail for lack of
reserves and opec market share would rise. But non-opec
production crept up and the share of opec exports fell. Once
around 65 percent, opec exports are now 30–35 percent of
the world oil market. Only as the production restriction
became tighter did the cartel receive some cooperation from
non-opec nations.
Saudi Arabia’s oil minister has said that the kingdom will
not cut production again without cooperation from inside and
outside opec. Common sense supports that. Had the Saudis
been the only ones to cut in 1999, they would have lost money
just as in 1980, and they would have failed to make the price
increase stick.

DEPENDENCE ON OIL

Price fixing by private companies on the
opecscale would not be tolerated in any industrial country. In
the United States, the officers of firms that engage in such activities
go to jail. But the opecmembers are sovereign states, subject
to no country’s laws. Moreover, the United States and other
nations want to think they have the opec nations’ support —
particularly the Saudis.
This alleged support consists in “access” to oil. But in a global
market filled with buyers and sellers, everyone has access.
Another myth is mutual obligation: The opec nations’ supply
oil, the United States protects them. In truth there is no
choice; we must protect the opec nations from outsiders or
neighbors. They owe us nothing for protection and will give
us nothing. Of course, opec will supply oil. The only question
is how much oil — and that determines the price. The supposed
opec (or Saudi) obligation to supply is what lawyers call
“void for vagueness.” But those in government crave assurance
that they are accomplishing something, and they will pay for
that assurance.
After 30 years of high export earnings, the opec nations
remain as dependent on selling oil as ever. In opec nations, oil
exports still pay for nearly everything. Fifty years ago,
Venezuela encapsulated the idea of using oil money to develop
non-oil industries into a fine slogan: Sembrar el petroleo—
“Plant the oil.” In the Middle East, although some small opec
states accumulated financial assets abroad, cartel members
failed completely to develop other export industries. Those
member nations now are usually broke, cannot save, and cannot
plan ahead.
Where did the $3 trillion in oil revenues go? Mostly to armaments,
subsidies, payoffs, population growth, and grandiose
prestige projects — far la bella figura, as the Italians say. Showy
projects look bad when neglected. The Saudis in 1980 had $180
billions in foreign assets. They are now in debt, running deficits
even in the last few years.
In Iraq, history did an experiment. In 1991 when oil exports
vanished because of UN action, national gdpshrank by 86 percent.
Iraqi non-oil industries existed to sell to the oil industry
or to locals with oil income, but suddenly there was no oil
industry or income. Some Iraqi non-oil industries were stateowned
Soviet-style clunkers, others were subsidized or shielded
by tariffs and import quotas along with corruption. As a
result, Iraq’s non-oil economy — even today — is small and
jobs are scarce. For thousands of years, Mesopotamia, “the land
between the rivers,” was a big wheat exporter, but no more.
Saudi Arabia now grows and exports wheat at a cost many
times the market price. To grow it, they use up underground
water deposits at ever-rising cost. Of course, this builds a huge
vested interest in continued spending.
opec nations have little but oil income, and most of them
live in a rough neighborhood. Government decision-makers
in those nations have a shorter time horizon than private companies.
They pursue short-run gain, disregarding the long-run
pain. Hence, opeccartels are hasty and extreme, and they push
to raise prices faster and further than would private firms. opec
members get good advice to cut their price in order to slow or
stop consumers’ investment in energy savings and non-opec
oil producers’ investment in new capacity. But investment takes
time, and the members cannot take time.
opecnations will continue to “take the cash and let the credit
go/ Nor heed the rumble of a distant Drum.” They choose
higher prices now, despite lower sales later. Some 70 years ago,
an oilman reported back to his company about Persian Gulf
rulers: “The future leaves them cold. They want money now.”
They still do.
The opecnations’ model is King Philip II of Spain, the richest
king in Europe, who went broke the most often. He spent
his vast mineral revenues to support bad habits, and buy glory.
When a year’s revenues were low, he borrowed against the following
year’s income. That behavior ruined Spain then, and it
is ruining the opec nations now.

COOPERATION WITH OPEC

The International Energy Agency
(iea) and the U.S. government recently reaffirmed their cooperation
with opec. iea discourages importing nations from
using strategic stocks, including the United States’ Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. The importer nations have agreed not to
use those stocks unless there is a serious “real shortage.” If so,
they will never be used. In a market economy, the price changes
to equate the amount supplied to the amount demanded, precluding
a “real shortage,” then or now. As ever, the ieaand the
United States ignore price.
In 1974, the ieaestablished the rule that no strategic stocks
could be used without a “gap” between demand and supply of
at least 7 percent. But in 1978–80, the oil price tripled for the
usual reason: not that wells were giving out but because opec
nations, particularly Saudi Arabia, shut in production rather
than let it expand to make up for Iranian fluctuations. There
was no use of strategic stocks. The Carter administration had
previously agreed not to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
without Saudi permission.
opec has just cut production quotas for precisely the same
reason: to head off lower demand later. Thus we are in the same
position today as in 1979. The cartel members supposedly
cooperating with us were and are committed to nothing. They
will raise or lower output to increase their profits. There is and
will be no shortage; they are glad to produce the amount they
have themselves decided. They will never cut off output in the
future, any more than in the past — it would cost them money.
Use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would signal that
there are some limits to our patience. It would lower prices and
discourage speculation.

CONCLUSION

U.S. oil policies are based on fantasies not facts: gaps, shortages,
and surpluses. Those ideas are at the core of the Carter legislation,
and of the current Energy Bill. The Carter White House
also believed what the current Bush White House believes —
that, in the face of all evidence, they are getting binding assurance
of supply by opec, or by Saudi Arabia. That myth is part
of the larger myth that the world is running out of oil.

Posted by: TheDude

Excellent article... So how do 'we' fix it if the corruption is spread to all four corners?

The way I see it, if Brazil is on it's way to being an energy dependant nation, why can't America with is vast resources do the same. I'd be nice to give Opec the middle finger.

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS

Well, there is another way to look at it.

I have always believed part fo the reason to go into Iraq was to have a staging area to go into Iran. We are now on 3 of Iran's borders.

Im not saying I agree with this strategy, but I believe it was part of the reason for the Iraq war.

Posted by: TheDude

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Should Bush be allowed to run a 3rd term then like FDR?

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Should Bush be allowed to run a 3rd term then like FDR?

Don't be silly. Come on, I was starting to believe in you, grasshopper.

Even I, the oft-accused-Bush-backer-no-matter-what-despite-the-many-times-I-have-disagreed-with-him-on-this-forum, believe that the rule of law should prevail here, and Bush should go home in '09.

Besides, after the way these America-haters have treated him, I bet he'll go with alacrity (see Dictionary).

Posted by: fossten

Quote:

Originally Posted by 95DevilleNS

Excellent article... So how do 'we' fix it if the corruption is spread to all four corners?

The way I see it, if Brazil is on it's way to being an energy dependant nation, why can't America with is vast resources do the same. I'd be nice to give Opec the middle finger.

I'm with you, buddy. I just think we should drill for oil, since it's the cheapest and it's obviously there. Our leaders are too afraid of the envirowackos to allow us to drill for our own oil. At the same time, our leaders cry and whine about being dependent on foreign oil.

Let's drill some damn holes!