Science Undecided on Room Temperature Superconductors

[pErvinalia]

Huh?

[Forty Two]

Hermit is a Kraut.

Pass the Jagerschnitzel!

[pErvinalia]

Schnell!!! Achtung!

[Forty Two]

[Seth]

I know the answer: Both Seth and his buddy claimed oil had nothing to do with it,

I dare you to quote one instance where I "claimed oil had nothing to do with it."

[pErvinalia]

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 0#p1635518

This was at the end of yet another long attempt to un-addle you and get you to understand that we were talking about 2003 being about IRAQI oil, not 1991 and KUWAITI oil. You only accept that oil had anything to do with it via KUWAIT in 1991. But's that a strawman, as Hermit and others weren't talking abou KUWAITI oil. They were talking about IRAQI oil in 2003. In this link above you deny that 2003 was largely about Iraqi oil (and probably the Bush family's ego). You believe it was a continuation of 1991 via 1441. Which it wasn't, as amply shown by the wording and surrounding authoritative quotes of the resolution itself, and the quotes by people high up in the administration and it's agencies.

[Hermit]

And, if the US went there for oil, is that why the UK went too? Or did the UK have other reasons?

Silly question. Every American knows that the United Kingdom owes its very existence to US aid in WWII.

Very likely, but, that only sounds like arrogance when stated in a vacuum. The US and the UK owe their very existence to the aid and actions of the Soviet Union in WWII. The US may well owe its very existence to the actions of the UK in World War 2. The fact is, the German military in World War 2 was so fucking good, that it took the combined efforts of the United Kingdom (which owned about 1/4 of the world in 1939) and the British commonwealth of nations, the United States, the Soviet Union, and France to defeat the Germans. As late as June, 1944, there was significant uncertainty as to whether the allied powers would even win. The Germans were "that close" to pulling it off.

Had the Brits not held out as long as they did, the US may well never have been able to withstand a two front war with Germany and Japan. And, US efforts under Lend Lease and such did help the UK to survive. The same is true of the Soviets. Had they not done the heavy lifting of tearing the guts out of the German army, the rest of the allies may well have not been able to survivie. However, the Soviets likely would not have been able to withstand the Germans without UK and US support

In short, the UK owes. Here was an opportunity to make another part repayment on its eternal debt. Think of the US as the world's Sheriff and the UK as its trusty horse. That makes Australia the Sheriff's horse's dog.

Oh. Almost forgot to add this:

The tongue in cheek emoticon was there for a reason. Maybe the hint was too obscure, so I'll spell it out for you: The entire post was a parody of the opinions people form whose knowledge about WWII is sourced from 1950s and 1960s style Hollywood war movies. They are too numerous, and before you put words in my mouth, by no means confined to within the boundaries of the USA.

[piscator]

FFS, just look at the "before" and "after" of it. Before the invasion the Iraqi oil industry was government owned and controlled, and just about all the fuel extracted was consumed inside that nation. After the invasion two American companies share the $150 billion drilling and exploration contracts. One of them, to nobody's surprise, is Halliburton. It gets half of those contracts. Also, the Iraqi oil industry is now controlled by Exxon, Chevron, etc, and 80% of the fuel gets exported.

Why are you starting with the assumption that "Nationalized" [read: "Saddam-owned" in Iraq] is the best case, and all other outcomes are inferior for Iraq?

Where did I say or imply that?

Don't be a PA cunt. Your assumption that 'Nationalized is best' is stated in Page 24 of this awesome thread and the "FFS" bullshit I quoted.
Don't be a cheezy basterd either by comparing Oil For Food days as your idyllic pre-Invasion base period. Iraq was and will be a huge oil exporter.

[Hermit]

Your assumption that 'Nationalized is best' is stated in Page 24

I just had a look at my two posts on that page now, and can't find as much as a hint or insinuation that nationalised is best. All I can see that in the first one I observed that the oil industry was nationalised before the invasion and run by Halliburton ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP and Shell after it. Fair comment, I would think. In the second post I corrected Seth's wrong understanding that I implied that oil was the only reason. Again, no value judgement about private enterprise.

The fact is, and the way you erroneously interpret my posts it probably comes as a surprise to you, that I actually prefer privately run businesses to state owned ones. Nothing comes close to engendering efficient design, manufacture and distribution of goods and services than two features missing entirely in the latter: Profit motive and competition. That said, private enterprises do need reasonable regulations, but I'm sure you'd agree with that, though we may disagree on what constitutes reasonable regulation and what does not.

[piscator]

Sure. Except that at this level, businesses regulate countries..

And you really just made out that Iraq doing business with Halliburton, Xon, BP, Chevron and Shell post war is a, FFS, positive outcome, right?.

And just to make it clear, I never said you were a PA cunt, did I?

[JimC]

Sure. Except that at this level, businesses regulate countries..

And you really just made out that Iraq doing business with Halliburton, Xon, BP, Chevron and Shell post war is a, FFS, positive outcome, right?.

And just to make it clear, I never said you were a PA cunt, did I?

A positive outcome for the US, the companies themselves, and possibly the Iraqi government, but whether it is a positive outcome for the people of Iraq and world stability overall is another question. A bigger question is the degree of influence these companies have on US government and military decision making, and whether this influence leads to decisions with bad consequences down the track. As long as their bottom line is OK, the companies themselves will not worry in the slightest about such consequences of their interference in the political process...

[piscator]

A positive outcome for the US, the companies themselves, and possibly the Iraqi government, but whether it is a positive outcome for the people of Iraq and world stability overall is another question.


A question as an answer: What do oil companies do with their $$?

[JimC]

Pay their employees, pay their executives bloated salaries, grow the company, provide dividends to shareholders and as little tax as they possibly can. Same as any multinational. But that, of course, is not the point - the real issue is the influence they have on government policy, and whether the consequences of that influence is positive for anybody other than the companies themselves...

[Hermit]

Sure. Except that at this level, businesses regulate countries..

And you really just made out that Iraq doing business with Halliburton, Xon, BP, Chevron and Shell post war is a, FFS, positive outcome, right?

How many more times need I reiterate that I am not concerned with the pros and cons of private enterprise in this thread?

And just to make it clear, I never said you were a PA cunt, did I?

Whatever. :shrug:

[piscator]

Pay their employees, pay their executives bloated salaries, grow the company, provide dividends to shareholders and as little tax as they possibly can. Same as any multinational. But that, of course, is not the point - the real issue is the influence they have on government policy, and whether the consequences of that influence is positive for anybody other than the companies themselves...

When it comes to running the world, governments are a leisure time activity compared to high density liquid energy.