Just a quick question about private commodity investors and P. Bush.

[K.J.Healey]

I hate to drag this question into politics, and I know I'm fairly ignorant on the subject matter, by my example/questions are :

What investments does President Bush and his family have in middle eastern countries and their oil? I had thought that it was mainly Saudi involvement, and not Iran/Iraq.

Wouldn't an increased flow of unrefined oil out of the uninvested middle east create a greater supply and thus decrease the price and PROFIT made per barrel? It seems like simple economics. I believe GW has some part ownership of an off-shore drilling company as well. How could increasing the flow do anything but hurt him?

I myself am a moderate democrat. I just hear so much from fellow democrats/liberals about Bush is in the middle east for the oil. I'm wondering how exactly he will profit from it. Is it from gaining contracts and such?

 

[Bystander]

--- or, "Does the U. S. have any 'strategic interest' in the ME besides oil and personal profit?" Does that parallel your question at all?

Go to the world globe; get out the cellophane tape and some string; mark the world's maritime trade routes on the globe; mark alternate routes for moving trade around key "choke points;" compare the string lengths for the current routes and the alternate routes; figure the differences in transportation costs, tenths of a cent per ton mile for bulk materials to pennies a ton mile for finished goods in containers or on special carriers; and, you'll have the answer.

 

[K.J.Healey]

--- or, "Does the U. S. have any 'strategic interest' in the ME besides oil and personal profit?" Does that parallel your question at all?

Go to the world globe; get out the cellophane tape and some string; mark the world's maritime trade routes on the globe; mark alternate routes for moving trade around key "choke points;" compare the string lengths for the current routes and the alternate routes; figure the differences in transportation costs, tenths of a cent per ton mile for bulk materials to pennies a ton mile for finished goods in containers or on special carriers; and, you'll have the answer.

So you're saying there's some other reason for the US being in the middle east other than OIL! Ludicrous! Because from what my more libral friends have been spitting at me has been basically that somehow all Bush wants is oil.

But I must say that my friends (90% of them) are fairly ignorant of anything going on in the world aside from what local news stations tell them. That or what they read online (non-press). So don't worry, I have no disrespect toward any general party or group of people. I just simply wanted to know the references for the whole "no blood for oil" stuff.

 

[edward]

--- or, "Does the U. S. have any 'strategic interest' in the ME besides oil and personal profit?" Does that parallel your question at all?

Go to the world globe; get out the cellophane tape and some string; mark the world's maritime trade routes on the globe; mark alternate routes for moving trade around key "choke points;" compare the string lengths for the current routes and the alternate routes; figure the differences in transportation costs, tenths of a cent per ton mile for bulk materials to pennies a ton mile for finished goods in containers or on special carriers; and, you'll have the answer.

Sounds good technically, but the only strategic shipping in the middle east that is of a concern to the U.S., is the shipping of oil and oil related products, especially through the Strait of Hormuz. So it all boils down to oil in and from the middle east. When the oil is gone in another thirty years or so, we won't give a rats tu tu about the middle east.

The bulk of world trade is done by container ships in the open oceans.

 

[Bystander]

Sounds good technically, but the only strategic shipping in the middle east that is of a concern to the U.S., is the shipping of oil and oil related products, especially through the Strait of Hormuz. So it all boils down to oil in and from the middle east. When the oil is gone in another thirty years or so, we won't give a rats tu tu about the middle east.

The bulk of world trade is done by container ships in the open oceans.

Very good --- now, move that container ship from a port in India to a port on the Gulf or east coast of the U. S. --- you have three routes, at a penny a ton-mile. What is the shipping cost per ton for each route?

 

[edward]

I hate to drag this question into politics, and I know I'm fairly ignorant on the subject matter, by my example/questions are :

What investments does President Bush and his family have in middle eastern countries and their oil? I had thought that it was mainly Saudi involvement, and not Iran/Iraq.

Here is a good read on the Bush family investments. You may also want to google "Bush Caryle Group".

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0111-01.htm

 

[edward]

Very good --- now, move that container ship from a port in India to a port on the Gulf or east coast of the U. S. --- you have three routes, at a penny a ton-mile. What is the shipping cost per ton for each route?

You are presuming that Iran has the militay capability , and would be stupid enough to try to permanently close the Suez canal.

Neither India or a lot of other countries, including China would go for that. India has changed tremendously in recent years, including their military and naval capabilities.

 

[Bystander]

You are presuming that Iran has the militay capability , and would be stupid enough to try to permanently close the Suez canal.

Flunked your mind-reading course again? Who said anything about Iran? Nasser closed the canal 50 years ago --- coincident with one of the 20th century's major global recessions (blamed by economists on Ike's domestic policies). The ME, or SW Asia, is the "land of ten thousand prophets," and ten thousand looney toons --- any of which can close the Suez any time they want to do a "Cole" re-run.

Neither India or a lot of other countries, including China would go for that. India has changed tremendously in recent years, including their military and naval capabilities.

Stable governments in the area are critical to the interests of the U. S., and of the world --- Islamic extremists, pan-Arab nuts, and the rest of the psychotic crew in the area have to be controlled by the governments in the area, or exterminated. Neither India nor China have the power projection capabilities to be credible guarantors of "freedom of the seas," never have, might in the future, but have more than enough internal concerns to expect it any time soon --- who put vehicles, body bags, water, and medicine on the beach in Sumatra? The close neighbors, or the U. S.? You wanta wait for the Indians and Chinese to resolve problems in the ME? We spent the 19th century living off GB and the Royal Navy's policies toward freedom of the seas --- picked up our share of the load in the first half of the 20th --- now it's our turn --- thankless? Yeah --- tough. The Brits and Anzacs do their shares --- Japs are interested in contributing more --- how's it all play out? We win, the world wins, we lose, the world loses --- we don't get credit for lifting the world's standard of living, and we get blamed for their failures to stand up for their own interests.

 

[scott1]

--- or, "Does the U. S. have any 'strategic interest' in the ME besides oil and personal profit?" Does that parallel your question at all?

The Suez canal?

What about Isarel I doesn't Bush/the U.S. support Isareal?

 

[Bystander]

No more so than any other independent nation --- the extremists in the area have to have an excuse for the endless ass-whuppin's they get from the Israelis --- can't face themselves in the mirror knowing they're total losers.