OIL CEO INTERVIEWS

[Dave Sikorski]

That's a short e.

I ruin a shirt every time I drink Hawaiian punch, no matter the flavor.

-D

[capt. jakeg]

I would say (Strictly opinion) that china definitely has a part.
Would our situation and positioning in the worlds economies be different if we werent at war and spending TRIllions of dollars in Iraq? Would have probably been a better question.
I definitely think so. Our economy and foreign policy have lost significant bargaining chips over the past 7 years and China was waiting in the wings for us to falter. As soon as we falter and our attention is in places other than continuing economic growth, China miracously beings growing at an unprecidented rate. We now definitely compete for them with oil in ways that we did not have to 7 years ago. Our positioning as a super power has diminished quite a bit since we started in Iraq. Our military is distracted. We arent growing domestically or abroad. We have a lame duck in the white house. We have continuously poked at the mideast, who might I add has a lot of say in our fuel prices. We have continuously stirred the pot with Chavez, who also is a large supplier of fuel. We have completely given up on producing our own oil and every time the topic comes up all you hear is "well we cant build refineries". Why? Canada has the largest untapped oil fields in the world and we havent used any of our influence there. We decided to add costly ethanol to our fuel for what reason? The list goes on and on.... Main point is China is a big deal, but as far as fuel is concerned name one way which the Bush administration has made a step forward. Any one that you can name, there are at least ten steps the other way.
I believe that the strain put on our economy has been tremendous and while the effects of the war were not immediate, I believe the amount of money that we are spending in Iraq will be a burden on our economy for years to come. I believe that starting war in Iraq also upset the political climate of the entire mid east and that will always have a negative effect on oil prices.
I dont believe we should have gone into Iraq. I think it was an incredible mistake. That being said, I don't agree with the Democratic stance that we should just jump right on out of there. I think that we have created a quagmire there now that we might have a very difficult time getting ourselves and our economy away from it.
And Striper, the state department has released that there were officially no ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Saddam tried to assassinate GHWB. There was nothing in Afghanistan to rebuild and our vice president sat as an executive on the largest government contracting company in the US. Connect the dots...I believe Iraq is GWB's administrations fault and history is going to look back at George Bush and say that he was a failure as president and Iraq was not only his biggest blunder, but the start of a chain reaction that heavily damaged our economy and helped boost China into being our biggest competition as the worlds largest superpower.

[flatbottom]

Jake this was written in a recent Asian newspaper (opinion)


"One might assume that the approaching end of the George W Bush presidency is the beginning of the end of the American empire, at least as empire-building is usually seen - as an attempt to impose power on others by force.
The reason is simple: US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are badly stretched, and the pleas of US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to European countries to send more combat troops have fallen on deaf ears. Still, John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, notes that the war could proceed "for a hundred years".
The war in the Middle East is qualitatively different from the Vietnam War, in which McCain participated. In withdrawing from

Southeast Asia, the US actually put itself out of danger, its battered prestige notwithstanding. The point is that Vietnam would not make any attempt to create problems for the US at the end of formal hostilities.
The situation is entirely different in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the US debacle will lead to intensifying efforts to harm American interests - and not only those of the US, but countries all over the globe.
From this perspective, the current wars are open-ended conflicts from which the US cannot extricate itself. Therefore, one could argue that the American empire is coming to its end and its global span could well be replaced by other powers, with China as the major candidate. The present situation in Africa serves as a prime example.
Recently, Bush visited Africa. While on the surface this was an expression of goodwill and an indication of US concern for African problems - poverty and the spread of pandemic disease, mostly - there were other purely pragmatic implications of the visit. One of these was Washington's attempt to counter China's growing influence. And in this competition with China, the US employs a weapon quite different from those used in Afghanistan and Iraq: the checkbook.
Financial and economic assistance was widely used during the Cold War. In fact, in Africa, as well as in other parts of the world, attachment to either "socialism" or "capitalism" was directly connected to the amount of cash or assistance received from the respective superpowers. And while the former Soviet Union could often prevail in the case of direct military confrontation between its proxy and the Americans' proxy, it usually failed when the checkbook was employed. The US could easily outspend its rival, as at the time it was engaged in a "checkbook war" on a global scale.
These goodwill trips, which often went along with the distribution of American largesse, were one of the important aspects of US foreign policy of the period. Nothing of this sort can be seen today. For example, in Bush's recent visit to Africa, undertaken on the last leg of his presidency, the amount distributed to African countries has already been given or pledged by Beijing.
The increasing inability of the US to compete with China was voiced some time ago by former World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, who stated there is a moral reason why the US cannot provide financial help to as many countries as China. Wolfowitz claimed the US helps only those countries with solid democratic credentials, whereas China provides funds to anyone, even to regimes that grossly violate human rights. This assumption does not hold water, for in the past the US has provided generous funding to any regime, regardless if this was in Washington's best interests.
The problem with present-day moralizing is not due to any alleged increase in the US's moral sensitivity, but is much more related to the simple fact that US resources for a "cash war" are dwindling, at least in comparison to the war chests of the other players, such as China.
It can be stated that the decline of American influence is of no interest to the majority of average Americans. Moreover, many assume that the so-called end of the US empire will mean more American money will be spent at home. Still, the shrinking of the US's imperial presence in Africa and elsewhere would correspondingly shrink its access to vital natural resources. At the same time, access to these resources will increase China's economic might and influence all over the world, the US included.
This aspect of America's global influence has not been discussed by any of the contenders for the presidency. And this is easily understood: the average Joe believes that the American system in both its internal and external applications works perfectly well. Just replace a "bad" president with a "good" one, whoever he or she will be, and the problems will be solved.
This is completely understood by those competing for the White House, and none of the presidential candidates will tell the public about losing the "checkbook" war to China and the implications of the defeat, which might be more serious in the long run than American defeats in Iraq and Afghanistan".

[GALAZIO]

You guys take a few minutes and YouTube/Google "daniel estulin" and watch the 4 videos.

I'm not going to say he's right, wrong, crazy or whatever... but, if you actually think about what the heck is going on and do a little research, I do not see how ANY intelligent, thinking person can not deduct that "something" is not adding up to the America we grew up believing in.

I don't care if you are a Democrat or Republican... it is worth the few minutes of time if you are a voting American to just educate yourself and open your mind to things that are being left out of the mainstream media. If it sounds interesting, then look into the interesting facts you find interesting, it is not difficult.

The problem I see is that the true "Americans" have become lazy SOB's and just take the word of media outlets as fact. What if, just what if "they" owned the media outlets and controlled the "delivery-boys" of the news???

And don't ask me who "they" might be... look it up yourself. For what it's worth, I went into this primary season thinking Mitt was the "answer". Since then, I decided to look into somethings I have never really heard of, or understood what the heck they were talking about on the news. What caused me to look? There was a :30 segment on the local news here about this new super highway being built (I drive over it everytime I head to the boat and it is in the middle of nowhere, coming from no where, leading to no where) and the news anchor mentioned the term North American Union. I looked it up, you should too.

[GALAZIO]

So... is anyone going to the "tradeshow & conference"? http://www.nascogto.com/

Also, BREAKING NEWS: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338306,00.html

Who is JP Morgan and what roll do they / did he play in the Conspiracy Theorist plan of a New World Order? Just google: "J P Morgan New World Order"

It is a little puzzling how these "conspiracy nutz" seem to be able to call the shots. http://www.nwotruth.com/jpmorgan-and...-bear-stearns/