Gas prices rantings

[cart7t]

Well, since he was no immediate danger to us, we should have let him build up more weapons, kill his own people with the snap of his fingers, and become a bully to non-terroristic states, right? Meanwhile, this fact finding committee can sit back aimlessly and observe the way he murders his own people?

Sadam had built no weapons. We had obliterated his ability to wage war in Gulf war 1. He was a paper tiger who was more fearful of being attacked by Iran in his weakened state than he was in trying to run terrorists camps to attack us.  As for his killing his own?  The ****es and kurds attempted to overthrow the goverment after Gulf war 1, they were no match for what was left of the Republican guard. They begged for our assistance, we turned our back on them.  They were slaughtered and pushed into mass graves.  where were we just a few years ago to stop the bloodshed?

No. If a mad dictator is hell bent on killing his own people and us if he had the chance, then he needs to be taken out. Tell me of another madman dictator who has killed millions, and I'll bet that the U.S. will go after them as well. Saddam, Osama Bin Laden, and other madmen hate America. Peace talks and letting them do what they will is ridiculous and will never work. Blunt force are the only things these terrorists understand.

Pfffttt...  This country has long supported dictators just as bad as Hussein or worse.  our long standing friendship with the Shah of Iran is history. We supplied him with quite an arsenal at the same time he was killing his own off with death squads.  I'd hate to start listing the dictators we've backed, including hussein, over the years that murdered their own.  

While you're at it. Are you going to ask that we enter Africa and stop the slaughter going on over there, especially in the Sudan?  I'm betting you'll fall short of saying our boys need to go over there.  

[Troutfisher]

They were slaughtered and pushed into mass graves.  where were we just a few years ago to stop the bloodshed?  

I believe that was about the time Clinton was slashing supplies for our troops and funds for the troops, right?  Speaking of Clinton, listen to what he said in '98.

"We gave Saddam a chance, not a license.  If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed.  We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction; we will also have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination of the region."

Taken from William Jefferson Clinton, Address to the Nation on the Bombing of Iraq, December 16, 1998.

[Dan:]

Well, since he was no immediate danger to us, we should have let him build up more weapons, kill his own people with the snap of his fingers, and become a bully to non-terroristic states, right?  Meanwhile, this fact finding committee can sit back aimlessly and observe the way he murders his own people?

Sadam had built no weapons. We had obliterated his ability to wage war in Gulf war 1. He was a paper tiger who was more fearful of being attacked by Iran in his weakened state than he was in trying to run terrorists camps to attack us.  As for his killing his own?  The ****es and kurds attempted to overthrow the goverment after Gulf war 1, they were no match for what was left of the Republican guard. They begged for our assistance, we turned our back on them.  They were slaughtered and pushed into mass graves.  where were we just a few years ago to stop the bloodshed?

No.  If a mad dictator is hell bent on killing his own people and us if he had the chance, then he needs to be taken out.  Tell me of another madman dictator who has killed millions, and I'll bet that the U.S. will go after them as well.  Saddam, Osama Bin Laden, and other madmen hate America.  Peace talks and letting them do what they will is ridiculous and will never work.  Blunt force are the only things these terrorists understand.

Pfffttt...  This country has long supported dictators just as bad as Hussein or worse.  our long standing friendship with the Shah of Iran is history. We supplied him with quite an arsenal at the same time he was killing his own off with death squads.  I'd hate to start listing the dictators we've backed, including hussein, over the years that murdered their own.  

While you're at it. Are you going to ask that we enter Africa and stop the slaughter going on over there, especially in the Sudan?  I'm betting you'll fall short of saying our boys need to go over there.  

If Saddam had no weapons, why couldn't he prove he destroyed them like the UN resolutions required? Why did we find buried MiGs and chemical artillery shells? He was given options before we attacked via UN resolutions and inspection alternatives. He didn't abide by the resolutions... There were terrorists taking refuge in Iraq before the war, we found evidence supporting that fact. Sure, we've backed dictators like the Shah, but why did we do that? Because we didn't want communism to take over their countries. What would have happened if the Soviet Union had taken over Iran? Bad stuff. Communism has killed millions of people and containment was a worthy policy if you ask me....And we are NOT  friends with Iran anymore. After the defeat of communism and their pursuance of different goals and adapting to extremist islam, we stopped supporting them.

[Troutfisher]

Well said, C312.  

[cart7t]

Well, since he was no immediate danger to us, we should have let him build up more weapons, kill his own people with the snap of his fingers, and become a bully to non-terroristic states, right?  Meanwhile, this fact finding committee can sit back aimlessly and observe the way he murders his own people?

Sadam had built no weapons. We had obliterated his ability to wage war in Gulf war 1. He was a paper tiger who was more fearful of being attacked by Iran in his weakened state than he was in trying to run terrorists camps to attack us.  As for his killing his own?  The ****es and kurds attempted to overthrow the goverment after Gulf war 1, they were no match for what was left of the Republican guard. They begged for our assistance, we turned our back on them.  They were slaughtered and pushed into mass graves.  where were we just a few years ago to stop the bloodshed?

No.  If a mad dictator is hell bent on killing his own people and us if he had the chance, then he needs to be taken out.  Tell me of another madman dictator who has killed millions, and I'll bet that the U.S. will go after them as well.  Saddam, Osama Bin Laden, and other madmen hate America.  Peace talks and letting them do what they will is ridiculous and will never work.  Blunt force are the only things these terrorists understand.

Pfffttt...  This country has long supported dictators just as bad as Hussein or worse.  our long standing friendship with the Shah of Iran is history. We supplied him with quite an arsenal at the same time he was killing his own off with death squads.  I'd hate to start listing the dictators we've backed, including hussein, over the years that murdered their own.  

While you're at it. Are you going to ask that we enter Africa and stop the slaughter going on over there, especially in the Sudan?  I'm betting you'll fall short of saying our boys need to go over there.  

If Saddam had no weapons, why couldn't he prove he destroyed them like the UN resolutions required? Why did we find buried MiGs and chemical artillery shells? He was given options before we attacked via UN resolutions and inspection alternatives. He didn't abide by the resolutions... There were terrorists taking refuge in Iraq before the war, we found evidence supporting that fact. Sure, we've backed dictators like the Shah, but why did we do that? Because we didn't want communism to take over their countries. What would have happened if the Soviet Union had taken over Iran? Bad stuff. Communism has killed millions of people and containment was a worthy policy if you ask me....And we are NOT  friends with Iran anymore. After the defeat of communism and their pursuance of different goals and adapting to extremist islam, we stopped supporting them.

The UN weapons inspectors found no other evidence to support that Iraq had any chemical weapons. The UN is the ones to decide when and where it's time to take military actions in this case and they saw that Hussein was no threat to anyone other than his own people.

Again.  IRAQ WAS NO IMMEDIATE TO THREAT TO ANY OUTSIDE COUNTRY.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT FACT.  Until someone can come up with something, anything linking Iraq to 9-11 or something other than some old mustard gas USED DURING THE IRAN/IRAQ WAR WHICH WE WERE COMPLETELY AWARE OF,  then I'd say we had plenty of time to push for more sanctions to get Sadam to change his mind for further searches of his country.  Old, non-viable mustard gas or plane parts stuck in the sand isn't grounds to invade any country.  

BTW, we backed the Shah of Iran in order to secure our own listening posts to spy on the Russians.  That's no excuse to turn our heads on murder or do are you suggesting that sitting back and watching the Shah murder his own people was OK as long as it kept the communists at bay?  

That's hypocrisy on your part and pretty sickening.

BTW, we're not friends with Iran anymore because we pizzed them off while we sat and turned our heads as the Shah murdered his own people left and right.  When they tossed him out on his rear, we stupidly took him in and provided asylum for him.  Duh.  Talk about adding more gas to a fire.

[Troutfisher]

The UN weapons inspectors found no other evidence to support that Iraq had any chemical weapons. The UN is the ones to decide when and where it's time to take military actions in this case and they saw that Hussein was no threat to anyone other than his own people

The U.N. is a joke within itself.  They are a group of anti-American leaders who sit around, drink coffee, pass faulty resolutions, and never carry them out.

The U.N. Weapon Inspectors were booted out of Iraq in 1998 by Saddam and his croonies.  They had made six inspections, and Saddam got increasingly worst each time, and as just mentioned, booted them out in 1998.  The U.N. had plenty of time to act: twelve years.  Saddam repeatedly violated 16 U.N. Security Resolutions.  He continued to seek and develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, as well as "brutalizing the Iraqi people, including committing acts such as gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity, supporting international terrorism, and refusing to release or account for prisoners of war and other missing individuals from the Gulf War."

Quotes taken from "The White House:  A Decade of Deception and Defiance."

Only when the United States came marching on his doorstep did the dictator destroy a variety of illegal missles, which he previously denied having to the inspectors.  Then, illegal drone planes were discovered that were capable of distributing poisonous gas or biological agents.

[Dan:]

forget it.  :-/

[cart7t]

There are always those easily led like sheep, who will believe anything they're told.  You guys are made to be Bush cheerleaders.  

[Water Dog]

The UN is the ones to decide when and where it's time to take military actions in this case and they saw that Hussein was no threat to anyone other than his own people.

That's rich ;D

Now let's see.....there are many reasons to not trust the UN to be effective at anything, do your own research.

Here's a start. Support for United Nations Justifiably Weakened by Financial, Sex and Human Rights Scandals by Ryan Balis

A few excerpts: "Oddly enough, there were a lot of Europeans and others implicated in taking bribes from Saddam who haven't supported the US in this conflct."   ;D

1. U.N. Corruption and Ineptness Leads to Oil-for-Food Scandal

"The scandal leaving the blackest mark on the U.N. is the Oil-for-Food scandal. After the ousting of Saddam's Iraq in 2003, accusations emerged that the Iraqi government, politicians from the U.N. and various nations, as well as companies doing business with Iraq, illegally profited from the sale of Iraqi oil. According to the U.N.-backed inquiry into Oil-for-Food corruption charges, "Iraq manipulated the [Oil-for-Food] Programme to dispense contracts on the basis of political preference and to derive illicit payments from companies that obtained oil and humanitarian goods contracts."

" Even Annan's own son, Kojo Annan, has been investigated and accused of lying about his work with a U.N. contractor that had a $10-million-a-year contract to monitor Oil-for-Food shipments to Iraq."

"According to Volcker, blame for not preventing Saddam Hussein's manipulation and $1.8 billion extraction in kickbacks and bribes falls squarely on inept U.N. administration."

2. Emboldening Executioners

The U.N. has been incapable of preventing some of the most gruesome human rights violations in the 20th century.

In one well-publicized failure, at least 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were slaughtered in Srebrenica by General Ratko Mladic's Bosnian Serb army.37 The U.N. had intervened in the Balkans conflict in 1993 to establish one of five "safe havens." Yet, a thinly-spread force consisting of 350 light-armored Dutch peacekeeping troops did not protect - nor deter - Bosnian Serb forces from overrunning Srebrenica and committing what has been described as the worst massacre in Europe in half a century.38

The international community partially disarmed thousands of men, promised them they would be safeguarded and then delivered them to their sworn enemies. Srebrenica was not simply a case of the international community standing by as a far-off atrocity was committed. The actions of the international community encouraged, aided, and emboldened the executioners... The fall of Srebrenica did not have to happen. There is no need for thousands of skeletons to be strewn across eastern Bosnia.41

3. And then there was Rwanda

This year marked the 12th anniversary of an enormous U.N. failure: the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.42 An estimated 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in 100 days in a systematic government-sponsored slaughter.43 Except for a token number of U.N. peacekeeping troops sent, inaction largely ruled the day at the U.N. as Rwanda was turned into a killing field.

The Rwandan genocide occurred on the heels of the U.N.-ordered mission in Somalia the year before that left 18 American Rangers and 312 Somali dead.44 Remembering images of U.S. servicemen being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu to cheering mobs, President Bill Clinton was reluctant to send American troops or supplies to Rwanda to stop the genocide.45 Moreover, then-Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali says in a PBS documentary that he requested additional forces but "nobody wanted to send troops."46

Perhaps only 5,000 soldiers were needed, according to Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, Force Commander of the United Nations Mission to Rwanda.47 Yet the Security Council rejected Dallaire's plan for a determined military presence and ordered him not to intervene in the conflict.48 After ten Belgian peacekeeping soldiers were ambushed and butchered, Belgium withdrew its roughly 2,500 troops.49 Five weeks into the genocide, the 5,000 U.N. (mainly African) troops and 50 U.S. armored personnel carriers eventually authorized by the U.N. were of little consequence. The death toll had already counted over 300,000 Rwandans, and the slaughter continued for another eight weeks.

4. Sex Scandals: These are serious crimes.

Another U.N. scandal involves allegations of sexual misconduct. There have been 221 investigations of sexual misconduct by U.N. civilian and military peacekeepers from February 2003 to October 2005.51 A 2002 classified U.N. report characterized the problem of sexual misconduct in West African nations by U.N. personnel and representatives as "widespread," with evidence of pedophilia, prostitution and rape at gunpoint. Although allegations of sexual abuse stretch back to U.N. peacekeeping missions in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Guinea,52 allegations of sexual misconduct doubled from 2003 to 2004.

The UN has strayed a long way from its original mission statement.

"In October 1945, 51 nations signed the U.N. Charter. As the preamble to the Charter describes, among the purposes of the U.N. are "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war... to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights... to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress."

Ryan Balis is a policy analyst for The National Center for Public Policy Research. He can be reached at rbalis@nationalcenter.org.

We get some return from funding the "bait monkey" but not from funding the UN.

[Dan:]

There are always those easily led like sheep, who will believe anything they're told.  You guys are made to be Bush cheerleaders.  

by what?

There are also always those who want to beleive in something other than mainstream so they can feel special; like they're onto somethine secret and important.

It must make you feel "special" to be right about everything and not to have given in to the "herd." But wait, you are now in the majority. You are part of a bigger herd than we are! You have been made a Hillary cheerleader!

But seroiusly, I hate when people come to saying others are brainwashed when they can't refute something...It's lame.

Is it worse to "beleive everything someone says" or to automatically discredit and beleive counter to what that person says? Both are irrational and unwise. Just because someone has come to a different conclusion doesn't mean they don't know the issues.

[Troutfisher]

by what?

There are also always those who want to beleive in something other than mainstream so they can feel special; like they're onto somethine secret and important.  

Agreed...Cart, saying that we're "Bush Cheerleaders" is funny, but not true.  

[cabela10]

You guys are made to be Bush cheerleaders.

I was thinking the same thing.  These two seem to wait for the next great thing to come out of Bush's mouth.  It's too bad they will be waiting a long time.

If Bush is so hell-bent on getting rid of dangerous people, why doesn't he invade North Korea?  You wanna know why?  BECAUSE WE WOULD GET DESTROYED BY THEM.  Bush is fighting the weak right now.  We have no reason to be in Iraq.  

Weren't we suppose to be in Aphganistan anyways?

[Troutfisher]

And you, my friend, are a liberal-media follower.  You get the facts straight off the biased prime time, and don't dare back America, as I can see, because you put down our troops directly when you say that our military is too weak to fight North Koreans.  If the Iraqi people are so weak, why don't you suit up and head over, and see how weak they are?

We were in Afghanistan.  We took control of Kabul, and then whilst Saddam was laughing, mocking, and threatening us, we decided to take control of his country as well.  

We have no reason to be in Iraq

-Saddam has murdered over a million people, if not more, in his time

-Saddam possessed WMDs before and during the Gulf War

-Saddam held more weapons that were unaccounted for after the Gulf War

-Saddam used poison gas in violation of the Geneva Convention

-Saddam paid 25,000 bucks to suicide bombers families who blew themselves up in Israel

[Dan:]

just forget it troutfisher. You can't argue with people who won't respond to any of your arguments with anything other than "you're brainwashed." Arguing on the internet is dumb, no matter how hard you try, you can't win...

And btw, if we went to an all out war with NK, we would destroy them. They might have a big army, but quality is better than quantity. We would destroy every country in the world except maybe China in a war and that isn't just pride, that's almost fact.

[Rattlinrogue]

It's already coming down here.For the last few days it has been sinking 10 cents a day.It's at $1.99 right now.I doubt it'll  go any further.Is there an election coming up soon?LOL

[Troutfisher]

I'll follow your advice, C312.  I guess facts don't matter when the other side resorts to name calling.

Gas is down to $2.05 here.

[Water Dog]

Crude Oil futures are coming down, around $50 a barrel for oil delivered in Feb., why aren't gas prices immediately lower?

Refiners are not going to price today's product on future prices that are lower when the refined product was made from higher priced crude.  Gas is likely to come down as the $50 crude goes into inventory.

The quandary refiners have is how to process the high cost crude in inventory and at the same time match market prices for products which have gone down.  So their profit margin begins to narrow.

About time huh?  ;D

Gasoline prices are likely to continue downward as the price of imported products made from less expensive crude oil puts pressure on US refiners

You and I search out cheap gas and wait to buy before filling up.  I don't keep as much on hand for my farm equipment hoping that the price will come down and just buy enough to keep everything going.  Everyone is probably doing that and gas inventories are way up.  

Even though the refiners decreased crude oil processing rates from 91.5 to 87.9 % capacity and made less product, and cut back on product imports, gasoline inventories rose steeply in every US region. Consumer pressure like this is the best way to push prices down in a free market.   ;D

The decrease in crude oil prices seems to be primarily driven by futures speculators who think they see the end of the rainbow and are turning their investments to other areas or it could be the dreaded Bushes and Halliburton.  ;D

The fundamentals of the international supply-demand market really have not changed much over the past couple of years. So futures prices, which set a measure for spot and contract crude oil prices, are simply returning to a more normal level. The question is, "what is normal?"

If the crude oil price goes below $45 dollars a barrel the economic incentives to pursue alternative energy - a la all the recent government initiatives - go away.  

Who would want to keep us hooked on oil?  Maybe the Saudis?  They have been pushing the price down.  

There is now real reason why crude prices should be $45, $25, or $10 a barrel.  We have seen wild swings in the market before.  The oil producing countries, OPEC, try to keep it as high as they can as would anyone trying to sell a commodity.

The oil industry is going into this spring with large inventories of expensive crude and refined gasoline.

You and I are waiting them out as best we can for lower prices.  A cold Feb. and March will help them to reduce inventory but some will have to sell product below cost to maintain their normal market shares.   ;D

It is a complicated issue.

There is a lot of crude oil available in the world at $45 per barrel and above (as well as alternative energy). As the prices drop lower, some crude oil fields cannot be found, developed and produced at the lower market price, so supply dries up. Ironically, as prices drop lower, alternative energy sources also become less economically feasible.

Hopefully, some day, someone is going to find alternatives to oil and the internal combustion engine that will be so inexpensive that we will see the entire oil market disappear.  

It only took a few years for Ford to erase the horse and buggy, which had been the primary mode of transportation for hundreds of years.  There went the "buggy whip" industry and many others.

Do you remember how fast vinyl records went off the shelves?  How about eight tracks?  Pagers? I don't know about you but I can hardly keep up!  I've got a bag phone that weighs 10#.  Anybody need a doorstop real cheap?  

Decreasing crude prices puts a damper on Iran whose entire economy is based on the sale of oil.

That's a good thing!  

That is one kind of diplomacy that they understand.  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would like to overthrow the Saudi Royal family; maybe they would like to tone him down some.....

[Panamoka_Bassin]

Oh, yeah, this is a thread about GAS PRICES... I almost thought it was a political debate between leftists and right-wingers...

[Water Dog]

Just trying to point out that oil (fuel) is just another commodity traded on the free market.

Futures affect prices.  Political instabilities and placing some fuel sources off limits (ANWR) affects Futures because it affects supply.  Check it out..

Politics also affects prices with taxes,  43 cents in my State, supposedly for highway construction, but the Gov. has chosen to 'move the money' around, so there you go, back to politics.

SOME EXAMPLES OF COMMODITIES

[edit] Livestock & Meat

Commodity Unit Currency Bourse

Lean Hogs 1 lb USD ($) Chicago Mercantile Exchange  

Pork Bellies 1 lb USD ($) Chicago Mercantile Exchange  

Live Cattle 1 lb USD ($) Chicago Mercantile Exchange  

Feeder Cattle 1 lb USD ($) Chicago Mercantile Exchange  

[edit] Fuels

Light, Sweet Crude Oil barrel USD ($)  

Unleaded Gasoline metric ton USD ($) $2.13

Diesel (max. 0.035% sulfur) metric ton USD ($)  

Light petrol (max. 0.2% sulfur) metric ton USD ($)  

Heavy petrol (max. 1.0% sulfur) metric ton USD ($)  

Heavy petrol (max. 3.5% sulfur) metric ton USD ($)  

Brent crude oil