Dessert with sparklers

 kurtster wrote:
Obviously sticking to the Macro issues...explaining why 1 record is in the pile of 130,000.

That is your interpretation, not mine.  Simple as that.

You're into the micro.  I'm into the macro.

... Anything received by an office or agency is included in the record, regardless of credibility at the time of receipt.  The veracity is established after receipt if need be, but regardless of veracity, the item is not removed from the file.  It remains part of the complete record.

  You obviously got to the end of my last post... so why is he acting soooooo damn guilty?

...
It just seems that you hold me to one standard and the dragon to another one.  Or you simply agree with him on everything.

.
What say you...?

I don't disagree with your argument...but that doesnt mean the US government hasn't done and won't do what is arguably more rational...regardless of the party. 

Happy New Year

Merry Christmas to you too!

Back on topic...again, beating a country in war* doesn't mean anybody gets free oil, or cheaper oil. We still have to buy it, and its price is still set by the world market. If the country with the oil wants to gain any advantage from it they have to sell it. The war changes nothing about the economics or availability of oil. 

Saddam Hussein invaded and conquered Kuwait. We invaded and liberated Kuwait. They sold oil before, they sold oil after. There was a brief interruption while burning oil wells were extinguished and refurbished, but fundamentally nothing changed. 

We invaded and conquered Iraq. They sold oil before. They still sell oil. Saddam was happy to sell us oil, and wouldn't have been able to run his regime with doing so. The war changed nothing about that.

The US government has been sanctioning various individuals and institutions in Venezuela since 2005, but until recently did not embargo Venezuelan oil. Even now Chevron has a license to export Venezuelan oil; we can't even claim that regime change would simplify the legal environment.

*Just before WW2 Japan was buying most of its oil from the US. The US imposed an embargo on oil sales in 1941, and Japan responded by invading and conquering the Dutch East Indies to secure its supply.

But they didn't buy that oil—they confiscated it for their war effort. Absent that dynamic (and the world has been free of it for over 80 years) "war for oil" is a false argument. 

I'm not so sure...oil is probably a big reason.
Look at what the US produces/ For oil, its light crude, and we export over half of our oil and gas production.
Meanwhile, our refineries are geared for the cheaper, heavier stuff imported from abroad...which are more profitable. 

Merry Christmas

Wow....that's a lot of engagement from the "call me when there is a conviction" guy.
What say you...?

. . .
- The DOJ couldn't be more inept.  Putting up pictures...taking them down...giving advice on how to interpret.  All the best people....

. . .

Completely agree. The whole idea of going to war for oil never made any sense—we can buy it from tinpot dictators just as easily as from democracies. Assuming we actually need to buy it, that is—and Chevron is still doing just that in Venezuela.

No, we're going to war with Venezuela for far nobler reasons: to wag the dog and distract from our president's many crimes; to stoke chest-thumping nationalists' sense of pride; to endorse the concept of great power spheres of influence that our erstwhile ally Vladimir Putin pushes; because murdering people in boats makes great television; and oh yeah something about regime change. And drugs. Because oil tankers are a massive conduit for drugs.

But, no, it's not about oil.