Lion said:

zappaisgod said:

Lion said:

I simply can't understand how you're not grasping this.  No, "we" (the American people per se) didn't gain anything.  Yes, American, British, and other IOCs and consultancies gained A LOT - access to Iraqi oil, exploration, R&D, and production licenses, new high-quality crude for their downstream industries...profit, in other words.  The governments involved made the decision to invade in part because it would open up new markets for multinationals with whom they shared a close relationship.  IOCs like Chevron and ExxonMobil openly urged the U.S. government to find a way to open up Iraqi markets for years.  The Bush administration's strong, unhidden connections with IOCs and with consultancies like Halliburton played a substantial role in their decision to invade. It is undeniable.

---

Of course it is deniable since you have weren't privy to the discussions.  The opening of new markets is peanuts compared to the cost that 50 nations bore.

---

DOD spending was $800 billion, and overall U.S. spending exceeded $1 trillion.

Iraq has more than 1/10th of the world's proven reserves.  That amounts to way more than $1 trillion.  Iraq has annual revenues on crude sales of between $95-115 billion per year, depending what source you're reading, and corporate revenues on oil are high by any region's standards.

---

What does that mean?  If you mean their profits are high you are mistaken  Profit margin in the oil industry is around 6%

Quote:

The Iraq war was financed on debt that its prosecutors themselves (meaning the individuals who comprise the administration) will never have to pay. 

---

The politicians never pay

Quote:

It's not like IOCs bore the costs, so it doesn't matter that the expenditure exceeds the rewards in the near term.  The U.S. government and the American people will pay down the line.  In other words, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

---

So you are trying to tell me that the entirety of the US government and that of 50 other nations decided to spend a trillion dollars so oil companies, most of whom aren't even in the coalition,  could make maybe a hundred billion from Iraq?  KooKoo.

Quote:

Edit: Bush's treasury secretary was privy to the discussions, and was fired for disagreements over energy policy.  He claimed the Bush administration was working closely with several IOCs, many of whom had contributed heavily to his campaign, to create an Iraqi energy policy prior to the invasion.  You'll accuse him of lying out of spite, but his statements are on record, and he was privy to discussions.

---

I'm sure we still have an Iraq oil policy.  And an Iran oil policy and a Saudi oil policy and a Venezuela oil policy.  The fact is most of the oil contracts went to China and Russia and we didn't even try to force anything.

zappaisgod said:

Lion said:

zappaisgod said:

Lion said:

I simply can't understand how you're not grasping this.  No, "we" (the American people per se) didn't gain anything.  Yes, American, British, and other IOCs and consultancies gained A LOT - access to Iraqi oil, exploration, R&D, and production licenses, new high-quality crude for their downstream industries...profit, in other words.  The governments involved made the decision to invade in part because it would open up new markets for multinationals with whom they shared a close relationship.  IOCs like Chevron and ExxonMobil openly urged the U.S. government to find a way to open up Iraqi markets for years.  The Bush administration's strong, unhidden connections with IOCs and with consultancies like Halliburton played a substantial role in their decision to invade. It is undeniable.

---

Of course it is deniable since you have weren't privy to the discussions.  The opening of new markets is peanuts compared to the cost that 50 nations bore.

---

DOD spending was $800 billion, and overall U.S. spending exceeded $1 trillion.

Iraq has more than 1/10th of the world's proven reserves.  That amounts to way more than $1 trillion.  Iraq has annual revenues on crude sales of between $95-115 billion per year, depending what source you're reading, and corporate revenues on oil are high by any region's standards.

---

What does that mean?  If you mean their profits are high you are mistaken  Profit margin in the oil industry is around 6%

Quote:

The Iraq war was financed on debt that its prosecutors themselves (meaning the individuals who comprise the administration) will never have to pay. 

---

The politicians never pay

Quote:

It's not like IOCs bore the costs, so it doesn't matter that the expenditure exceeds the rewards in the near term.  The U.S. government and the American people will pay down the line.  In other words, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

---

So you are trying to tell me that the entirety of the US government and that of 50 other nations decided to spend a trillion dollars so oil companies, most of whom aren't even in the coalition,  could make maybe a hundred billion from Iraq?  KooKoo.

Quote:

Edit: Bush's treasury secretary was privy to the discussions, and was fired for disagreements over energy policy.  He claimed the Bush administration was working closely with several IOCs, many of whom had contributed heavily to his campaign, to create an Iraqi energy policy prior to the invasion.  You'll accuse him of lying out of spite, but his statements are on record, and he was privy to discussions.

---

I'm sure we still have an Iraq oil policy.  And an Iran oil policy and a Saudi oil policy and a Venezuela oil policy.  The fact is most of the oil contracts went to China and Russia and we didn't even try to force anything.

---

zappaisgod said:

Lion said:

zappaisgod said:

Lion said:

I simply can't understand how you're not grasping this.  No, "we" (the American people per se) didn't gain anything.  Yes, American, British, and other IOCs and consultancies gained A LOT - access to Iraqi oil, exploration, R&D, and production licenses, new high-quality crude for their downstream industries...profit, in other words.  The governments involved made the decision to invade in part because it would open up new markets for multinationals with whom they shared a close relationship.  IOCs like Chevron and ExxonMobil openly urged the U.S. government to find a way to open up Iraqi markets for years.  The Bush administration's strong, unhidden connections with IOCs and with consultancies like Halliburton played a substantial role in their decision to invade. It is undeniable.

---

Of course it is deniable since you have weren't privy to the discussions.  The opening of new markets is peanuts compared to the cost that 50 nations bore.

---

DOD spending was $800 billion, and overall U.S. spending exceeded $1 trillion.

Iraq has more than 1/10th of the world's proven reserves.  That amounts to way more than $1 trillion.  Iraq has annual revenues on crude sales of between $95-115 billion per year, depending what source you're reading, and corporate revenues on oil are high by any region's standards.

---

What does that mean?  If you mean their profits are high you are mistaken  Profit margin in the oil industry is around 6%

Quote:

The Iraq war was financed on debt that its prosecutors themselves (meaning the individuals who comprise the administration) will never have to pay. 

---

The politicians never pay

Quote:

It's not like IOCs bore the costs, so it doesn't matter that the expenditure exceeds the rewards in the near term.  The U.S. government and the American people will pay down the line.  In other words, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

---

So you are trying to tell me that the entirety of the US government and that of 50 other nations decided to spend a trillion dollars so oil companies, most of whom aren't even in the coalition,  could make maybe a hundred billion from Iraq?  KooKoo.

Quote:

Edit: Bush's treasury secretary was privy to the discussions, and was fired for disagreements over energy policy.  He claimed the Bush administration was working closely with several IOCs, many of whom had contributed heavily to his campaign, to create an Iraqi energy policy prior to the invasion.  You'll accuse him of lying out of spite, but his statements are on record, and he was privy to discussions.

---

I'm sure we still have an Iraq oil policy.  And an Iran oil policy and a Saudi oil policy and a Venezuela oil policy.  The fact is most of the oil contracts went to China and Russia and we didn't even try to force anything.

---

V1rusH0st said:

Maybe they should have seperate chart available with nutrition content available upon request like fast food restaurants do. I don't think they should have to put it plan on the menu. This affects their business in a few ways. Having to rearrange/create new menus as well as possibly discouraging people from ordering certain foods.

I think if people are that concerned they should take it on themselves to learn a bit about what different foods are health and which aren't. It only takes general knowledge to know if what you are about to eat is healthy or not. If you want more exact figures you can ask.

Being lazy as fuck is probably the reason they are fat anyways. Want everything spoon fed to them and never want to work for it. PLEASE PUT CALORIES ON TEH MENU AM TOO STUPID TO USE INTERNETZ LULZ!!1!!1

---

Lion said:

Having a policy =! forming a State Department bureau to plan energy policy for a country you're about to invade, and consulting with IOC's about how to distribute that country's energy.  Again, his treasury secretary denounced the collusion as unethical.

---

Quote:

 

Your $100 billion figure is way low and betrays an ignorance of the oil industry.  ExxonMobil alone invested $50 billion in one field.  Think they would invest that much if they weren't expecting substantial returns in the long run?  (They are divesting now because it hasn't worked out well.)

---

Quote:

  They are only one of several major U.S. and British IOCs operating in Iraq.  BP has massive concessions.  Chevron and other big guys have won contracts there and are seeking to expand. 

---

Quote:

Not to mention Halliburton and companies of its ilk, who have profited mightily.

---

Quote:

  Yes, some IOCs have been outbid and confounded by Iraq's new chaotic bureaucracy and the Baghdad-Erbil divide on energy policy, and in other cases they have been quite successful.  Just because everything hasn't gone to plan doesn't mean there wasn't one. 

---

Quote:

China is ravenous for oil and Russia is paranoid of the U.S. and Europe further encroaching on its regional energy interests, so it makes sense that their state-controlled energy corporations would be very aggressive in the wake of privatization of the Iraqi oil industry.

---

Quote:

Finally, allow me to say for the umpteenth time that oil was a major consideration, and NOT the raison d'etre for the war.  Do I think any countries would be so corrupt as to lead a coalition into war for the sole reason of benefiting a few of their campaign backers and corporate friends, costing Americans trillions to do so?  Actually, yes, I think there is no limit to the possibilities of state corruption, regardless of the type of state.  Do I think that is precisely what happened here?  No.  The oil market was one of several considerations.

-Edited for grammar.-

---

Me_Roy said:

V1rusH0st said:

Maybe they should have seperate chart available with nutrition content available upon request like fast food restaurants do. I don't think they should have to put it plan on the menu. This affects their business in a few ways. Having to rearrange/create new menus as well as possibly discouraging people from ordering certain foods.

I think if people are that concerned they should take it on themselves to learn a bit about what different foods are health and which aren't. It only takes general knowledge to know if what you are about to eat is healthy or not. If you want more exact figures you can ask.

Being lazy as fuck is probably the reason they are fat anyways. Want everything spoon fed to them and never want to work for it. PLEASE PUT CALORIES ON TEH MENU AM TOO STUPID TO USE INTERNETZ LULZ!!1!!1

---

I think I get what you're saying and I could jump onboard with the first part. A separate list of caloric values would suffice.

The second part is more difficult to swallow. As I've noted by including the caloric values for certain Applebees menu items above and as another has confirmed with the number for a certain McDonald's burger, these figures are often startling and go way beyond "common sense" or "general knowledge." Why should a plate of fajitas have 1500 calories?  I don't fucking know and wouldn't believe it if I didn't see it in print!

---

fapjack said:

How is giving a consumer more information a bad thing?  You can eat whatever the fuck you want to, but I would like to know what I'm getting.  Should I be able to cook dog shit and give it to people as a mystery sandwich without letting them know what is in it?

---

Quote:

What collusion?

---

tymoteusz3 said:

fapjack said:

How is giving a consumer more information a bad thing?  You can eat whatever the fuck you want to, but I would like to know what I'm getting.  Should I be able to cook dog shit and give it to people as a mystery sandwich without letting them know what is in it?

---

IT'S AN AFFRONT TO HIS LIBERTIES fapjack!!

---

fapjack said:

So you don't have a good reason why they shouldn't?  Seems fair to tell people what they are getting, especially when it might impact whether or not they purchase it.  If you paid an escort for a BJ, wouldn't you want to know if she had a penis?

---

fapjack said:

You have kids. You'll spend the rest of your life paying for sex.

---