We have won !

[Coastie]

Herb, I am going from my observations of the Oil Prices when they raised and fall. During Jimmy Carter fuel went up, Clinton also. During the 2004 election Oil prices went as high as 115.00 per Barrel when Kerry started to win, but dropped back when Bush did win. And the Oil prices did not go up as they did till the Democrats took over in Jan 2007. The War in Iraq really has nothing to do with it, just more Lies the Democrats wants you to believe.


I have to disagree with the unecessary War in Iraq, it was a very much needed to preserve our word. We had put into place conditions, and those conditions was broken many times. Therefore we had the right, and needed to or our word would be worthless.


I heard the war was over oil, or was in revenge and such. All lies which I heard from mostly Democrat supporters. Sadly many Supporters of Bush started to believe these lies after hearing them time and time again.

Another reason I dislike the Democrats about is they will lie in a hart beat just to get you to vote for them, knowing out right it a lie. Yet when Bush listen to others and repeated what he was told and it turned out wrong he was called a liar, but in all truth He told the truth for real. Yes WMD was found, not all but some was found.

[Herb Schaffler]

"The War in Iraq really has nothing to do with it, just more Lies the Democrats wants you to believe."

The war in Iraq has somewhat interupted the flow of oil and insecurity over war in Iran has driven the prices up as investors bid up the price based on expectations of a cutoff of oil supplies due to war in Iran. These are some of the factors as well as increased technology in China and India. You can't always connect the rise and fall of prices with timing on who's in the White House or in Congress. Often, there is a delay in price increases. I will believe you that the Democrat controlled Congress caused the rise in prices if you can show me the mechanism by which they brought about that rise. The rise in oil prices during the late 70's was the result of a decreased supply of oil. OPEC held back on the supply of oil to punish us for supporting Israel in the 1973 war and Nixon's price controls of gasoline cut the profits and incentives of domestic oil companies to explore and drill new wells. They also had to shut in marginal wells that cost too much to produce. This is why Reagan to his credit deregulated oil. The high price in oil encouraged oil companies to increase their exploration and drilling and resulted in a glut which brought the price of oil down and helped contribute along with Reagan's cuts in taxes to a booming economy. No, I don't see how the Democratic controlled Congress is responsible for our current high oil and gasoline and diesel prices, but we can blame them for what they've done over the long run. Because of environmental hysteria, we havn't built any new refineries since the 70's. Their opposition to drilling offshore and in Alaska has also contributed to a shortage of oil and our dependence on foreign oil.

"I have to disagree with the unecessary War in Iraq, it was a very much needed to preserve our word. We had put into place conditions, and those conditions was broken many times. Therefore we had the right, and needed to or our word would be worthless."

There was no reason why we should have been involved in the first place. There was no clear and present danger to the US. I am opposed to our role as policeman of the world. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives our government that authority and our Founding Fathers were very opposed to our meddling overseas. The war in Iraq was in the planning for a long time by Israel and the neocons. First Iraq, then Syria and Iran. Israel wants to be the dominant country in the region and wanted to replace Saddam Hussein and the Mullahs in Iran with regimes friendlier to Israel. Bush was heavily influenced by Cheney and the neocons in his administration. 9/11 gave them the opportunity for the war in Iraq, they could sell it to the American public as part of a war on terrorism. All the talk about weapons of mass destruction was just a ruse for war. UN inspectors wanted more time to search for WMD's, but Bush and the neocons' patience ran out. I think the war was more about defense of Israel than about oil.

"Another reason I dislike the Democrats about is they will lie in a hart beat just to get you to vote for them, knowing out right it a lie."

Democrats and Republicans both lie to get elected.

[Herb Schaffler]

Coastie, I just got a new Newsmax magazine in the mail today. Newsmax is a conservative magazine. There is an interesting article that presents the reason why oil prices have risen so high lately and predicts that by the end of summer, the bubble will burst and we will be paying alot less in gasoline. Here are some highlights from the article:

"The real culprits, economists say, are oil-commodity speculators who are taking advantage of a weak American dollar and perceptions of market instability."

Whenever investers want to protect themselves against inflation or a weakening dollar, which has been weakened by the Fed's pumping too much money into the economy, people tend to protect their investments by investing in commodoties such as oil and gold. The buying up of oil and gold are driving prices up on both commodoties.

Michael C. Lynch, president of Strategic Energy & Economic Research told Newsmax, "Oil should not cost what it costs today - it is artificially inflated. I believe the price of oil will be below $100 per barrel by the end of June, and below $80 a barrel by the end of summer. This would bring the pump price of gasoline to around $2.50 to $2.60." That should be good news for the Republicans coming before the election.

The article went on to state that in Europe, where the euro remains strong, the relative cost of gasoline has increased by only about half what it has increased in the United States.

The high cost of gasoline in Europe is due mostly to taxes which go into paying for their expensive socialism including socialized medicine. I don't see why Democratic politicians like Hillary and Obama can't see this. I guess it's because they have such a belief in European style socialism and big government control, that they don't want to see it.

Lynch went on to tell Newsmax that there is plenty of oil out there. He said that Nigerian production is up, Iraqi production is up (contrary to what I said - my bad), worldwide demand is lessening, refineries are coming back online, and inventory levels are not low. World oil production was up 2.5% in the first quarter of this year, while demand was scheduled to rise by just 1.6%. U.S. demand for oil has dropped by 4%. Even China with its billions of wannabe motorists and runaway industrial growth saw its growth in oil consumption slow from 10% to 6% annually. There is less consumption going on according to Brian Bethune, Global Insight economist. He predicts U.S. demand will drop further, driven by new regulations that require U.S. passenger cars to average 35.7 mpg instead of the current 27.5, by 2015. SUV's and picup trucks will average 28.6 mpg, compared to 22 currently.

The article went on to report that high gas prices have increased the development of new sources of oil. Shell, for example, is developing strip mines in Alberta, Canada, to pull $30 a barrel oil out of tar sands. Three new oil rich Saudi fields are coming online and mothballed wells in California and Texas are being brought back into production. ExxonMobil is currently planning 20 new drilling projects. Public sentiment regarding nuclear power and even drilling in ecologically sensitive areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Florida's Gulf Coast appears to be shifting as the price of a tank of gas goes up.

Lynch added that small investors have been jumping into oil lately and he said that unsophisticated money always flows into the market last. This leads him to believe the bubble is about to burst and he said it could happen quickly.

[Coastie]

Herb, I know what I know by what I seen and researched. Yes both will lie, but the Democrats is well known and if you really reached the Democrats talks, you will find it mostly lies. And if you paid attention to Bush Campains, he has done or tried to live up to his word.


The War in Iraq disrupted Oil? Not hardly. Terrorist? Yes maybe. But most do not think Iraq was involved in Terrorism, But they seem to forget that a Terrorist Camp was destroyed in the Beginnig of the War, and Plans for the 9-11 Attacks was found, plus Floor Plans for Schools was found. And if the War was the cause, then why didn't the Oil Prices gone up this high in 2004? Why wait till 2007 and start? That does not add up. The time frame destroys that idea..

[Herb Schaffler]

Coastie, see my post just before your last post. I corrected myself on the war causing the driveup of prices, although I do believe it probably did have some effect in increasing prices by people speculating an increase in oil prices on the basis of people speculating a disruption in the flow of oil due to the war. Remember, prices don't rise overnight, they build over time as more and more people invest in oil speculating that the price will increase. As the article that I quoted from above shows, there has been lots of purchasing of oil stocks to protect from a falling dollar. When the value of the dollar declines due to inflation, people tend to invest in commodoties like oil and gold. Both oil and gold are rising in prices. I do think that expectations of war in Iran is also helping to drive up the price of oil. War with Iran will mean a cutoff of the flow of oil from Iran and through the Straight of Hormuz. This reduction in supply will result in a further rise in prices. People are currently buying up oil commodoties with the expectation of this cutoff in the supply of oil. This is helping to drive up the price.

The following article makes clear that speculation of war in Iran has brought about a rise in the price of oil. It points out how if there is an actual war there, it will double the price of oil and double the cost of a gallon of gasoline.

(Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own)
By Bernd Debusmann
WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) - When an Israeli cabinet minister said he thought an attack on Iran's nuclear sites was unavoidable, the price of a barrel of oil rose 9 percent to a new record in June. Nice, fat bonus for oil-producing countries, including Iran.
If rhetoric has that effect, imagine the consequences of an actual strike. The numbers have not been crunched, at least not in public, but a four-month computer simulation and gaming exercise carried out last year by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank, gives an idea.
It was based on an Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the passageway for 90 percent of oil exported from Gulf producers, in response to a U.S. attack on nuclear sites, air fields and air defense targets. The simulation showed the price of oil more than doubling, U.S. gross domestic product depressed for 2-1/2 years, private non-farm employment declining by more than one million jobs, and disposable personal income dropping by more than $260 billion.
In terms of oil and gasoline prices, last year were the good old days. At the time of the exercise, a barrel of oil traded at $65 and a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. averaged $2.80. It's now around $136 and $4.08 respectively and could well reach twice that after an attack. Tighten your belts!
The exercise did not measure the impact of the closure on Japan, more than 75 percent of whose crude goes through the Straits, South Korea (70 pct), India (65pct), or China (34pct). The assumption was that Iran would only succeed in closing the Strait for one full week, after which shipping would slowly resume.
Reaction to an attack on Iran would go beyond severe economic pain to the U.S. and other oil importers. One of the unintended consequences of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has been to greatly strengthen Iran which has the ability to wage guerrilla war by proxy on Israel (through Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza) and has shown it can dial up (or down) Shi'ite violence in Iraq.
The military consequences of an American or Israeli attack on Iran are incalculable.
Mohammed El Baradei, the head of the world's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has described military action to stop Iran's nuclear programme as a "ludicrous idea" which would unite Iranians against their attackers and "turn the region into a fireball." A crash program for building the bomb could begin as soon as the smoke clears.
ISRAELI HAWKS AND U.S. NEOCONS
The man who made the oil price jump on June 6 with his "unavoidable" comment was Israeli deputy prime minister Shaul Mofaz, a hawk born in Iran, whose views are close to U.S. neoconservatives who also feel that the only way to stop Iran's nuclear programme is to bomb it. Their's appears to be a minority position in the lame-duck Bush administration which is already bequeathing two wars and a battered economy to the next president.
But the U.S. could be drawn into an assault if Israel, impatient with the present diplomatic stalemate and the limited success of sanctions on oil-rich Iran, decided to strike, found itself unable to finish the job and requested U.S. assistance. In other words, the U.S. would have to finish what Israel started.
This week John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations predicted in an interview with the Daily Telegraph of London that Israel would attack between the U.S. elections on November 4 and the swearing-in of the next president on January 20. This was probably more a public expression of wishful thinking by a superhawk than deep insight into Israeli planning.
What has complicated the seemingly endless debate over the nuclear program Iran says is entirely for peaceful purposes is the assumption by many policymakers in the U.S. and Israel that the Iranian establishment is irrational. "The problem is that we are putting Iran in a category of one, different from anyone else," said Gary Sick, an Iran scholar at Columbia University. "There is a strain of commentary that Iranians are so suicidal and martyrdom-inclined they cannot be trusted."
In Israel, that school of thought was enshrined in a 2004 national security report for former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. It argued that Israel has an inherent right to pre-emptive attacks because the Iranian leaders are irrational and do not value self-preservation, according to Trita Parsi, author of Treacherous Alliance, a study of the complex, shifting relations between Iran, Israel and the U.S.
Despite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's alarming rants about the imminent demise of Israel, there is no evidence that Iran's opaque and many-layered leadership is plotting to commit collective suicide by building a nuclear bomb, promptly launching it at Tel Aviv and dying a fiery death in a retaliatory nuclear strike from Israel.
Israel's nuclear arsenal, a key element of the Middle East power equation, has been an open secret for years. It is still treated with studied silence both by official Washington and Israel, which has neither confirmed nor denied that it has nuclear weapons. Independent experts put their number at between 80+ and 300. Three nuclear submarines provide a second strike capability of which Iran is keenly aware.
Many strategic thinkers both in the U.S. and Israel dismiss the notion of Iranian irrationality and exceptionalism. "Iran's leaders are more concerned about staying in power than anything else," said Mehrzad Boroujerdi, an Iran scholar at Syracuse University.
Just like power elites anywhere else. (You can contact the author at [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This No Hillary For President Forum Link. ) (Editing by Sean Maguire)



© Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved

[Coastie]

The Iraq War price increase was slight, but not as it is now. Iran I still do not believe, not like it is now. If Iran was part of it, it would had been sooner, for a few years back We almost invaded them also, tensions are high in the region. America is not a liked place there.

But what I have observed in the past History repeats it self. Election 2004 Oil prices went up when Kerry started to win. But when Bush won it went back down.

Everyone thinks Bush is making a bunch of money off of Oil, wrong, but many of the Democrats are. I did not know to laugh at some others converstaion, or cry from fear. These guys wear praising Bill Clinton, and hoping Obama wins but had no clue to what going on... And that is what I have also noticed in many discussions, those who opposed were only repeating lies that the Democrats has pass out. Stuff that even been proven incorrect by others.

News articles have to be careful, I do not go by just one source when I research. As we noticed the major networks are one sided. So are the different News papers and magazines.

[Herb Schaffler]

"When an Israeli cabinet minister said he thought an attack on Iran's nuclear sites was unavoidable, the price of a barrel of oil rose 9 percent to a new record in June."

That quote from the above article shows that speculation of war in Iran does drive up the price of oil.