Carbon

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 21:35:36 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> On 4-Oct-2008, Carbon <> wrote:
>
>> Seriously Bill, who would give a shit about the Persian Gulf if it
>> wasn't for all that oil? If there was nothing in it for the West we'd
>> just stand back and let them continue to slaughter themselves as they
>> have for thousands of years. They'd just be another backwater, like
>> Africa.
>
> Correct, but that does not translate into "fighting a war for oil."

Right. We're there because of the oil, but when we're asked we just sort
of emit talking points about democracy or freedom or whatever. That seems
like it to me as well.

Jack Hollis

On 05 Oct 2008 23:18:00 GMT, Carbon <>
wrote:

>> Correct, but that does not translate into "fighting a war for oil."
>
>Right. We're there because of the oil, but when we're asked we just sort
>of emit talking points about democracy or freedom or whatever. That seems
>like it to me as well.

I've never heard anyone explain exactly how it's all about oil. Do
you think that at some point the US is going to start taking oil from
Iraq for free? If you think about how much the war has cost, the US
would have to take an awful lot of oil to break even.

Carbon

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:53:11 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 05 Oct 2008 23:18:00 GMT, Carbon <>
> wrote:
>
>>> Correct, but that does not translate into "fighting a war for oil."
>>
>>Right. We're there because of the oil, but when we're asked we just
>>sort of emit talking points about democracy or freedom or whatever.
>>That seems like it to me as well.
>
> I've never heard anyone explain exactly how it's all about oil. Do
> you think that at some point the US is going to start taking oil from
> Iraq for free? If you think about how much the war has cost, the US
> would have to take an awful lot of oil to break even.

I have never said that Bush or his handlers were competent, but what they
wanted was something along the lines of the Iraq Petroleum Company which
England controlled from WWI until the early 1970's, the difference being
they and the corporations they represented would reap the lions share of
the spoils.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...lhistindex.htm

The Moderator

"Jack Hollis" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On 05 Oct 2008 23:18:00 GMT, Carbon <>
> wrote:
>
>>> Correct, but that does not translate into "fighting a war for oil."
>>
>>Right. We're there because of the oil, but when we're asked we just sort
>>of emit talking points about democracy or freedom or whatever. That seems
>>like it to me as well.
>
> I've never heard anyone explain exactly how it's all about oil. Do
> you think that at some point the US is going to start taking oil from
> Iraq for free? If you think about how much the war has cost, the US
> would have to take an awful lot of oil to break even.

Jon Stewart explained it in a comedic bit. Carbon gets his news from Jon
Stewart.

Jack Hollis

On 06 Oct 2008 00:16:28 GMT, Carbon <>
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 19:53:11 -0400, Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On 05 Oct 2008 23:18:00 GMT, Carbon <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Correct, but that does not translate into "fighting a war for oil."
>>>
>>>Right. We're there because of the oil, but when we're asked we just
>>>sort of emit talking points about democracy or freedom or whatever.
>>>That seems like it to me as well.
>>
>> I've never heard anyone explain exactly how it's all about oil. Do
>> you think that at some point the US is going to start taking oil from
>> Iraq for free? If you think about how much the war has cost, the US
>> would have to take an awful lot of oil to break even.
>
>I have never said that Bush or his handlers were competent, but what they
>wanted was something along the lines of the Iraq Petroleum Company which
>England controlled from WWI until the early 1970's, the difference being
>they and the corporations they represented would reap the lions share of
>the spoils.

That's it? The US has been in control of Iraq for almost 5 years and
I don't see the US grabbing control of Iraqi oil. Unless there's some
future plan to do so, the theory that it's all about oil seems to be a
fantasy. Iraq is still in control of its oil and I doubt that will
change.

John B.

On Oct 14, 8:42 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:13:18 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>
> <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >One stat I can give you is that 2/3 of outstanding sub-prime loans
> >were made by non-bank insititutions, such as Countrywide and
> >Ameriquest, which are not regulated. These companies proliferated in
> >the 80s and 90s as a result of banking de-regulation. They can offer
> >lending terms that banks can't offer. Some of them engaged in
> >predatory, fraudulent lending. it was fine with them if their
> >borrowers defaulted, because as long as house prices kept going up,
> >they could foreclose on the borrowers, take the homes and sell them
> >for a profit.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> They made the loans because they knew that F&F would buy them. In
> fact, the government encouraged them to do it. And F&F had all the
> money they needed because the 1995 revisions to the CRA allowed them
> to issue securities backed by the loans they bought.
>
> BTW John, you know nothing about banking if you think that any bank
> wants to foreclose on a loan.

I know very little about banking. But if you had read what I wrote,
you'd have noticed that I referred to non-bank institutions. They
didn't sell off 100% of their loans.

John B.

On Oct 14, 8:57 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:26:03 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
>
> <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote:
> >I don't know if he does, but here's a link to a damn good article about
> >all of this :
>
> >http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...7/b4000001.htm
>
> Excellent Lloyd.
>
> Here's an inportant passage from the article.
>
> "et the banking system has insulated itself reasonably well from the
> thousands of personal catastrophes to come. For one thing, banks can
> sell some of their option ARMs off to Wall Street, where they're
> packaged with other, better loans and re-sold in chunks to investors.
> Some $182 billion of the option ARMs written in 2004 and 2005 and an
> additional $83 billion this year have been sold, repackaged, rated by
> debt-rating agencies, and marketed to investors as mortgage-backed
> securities, says Bear, Stearns & Co."
>
> It was the revisions to the CRA in 1995 that allowed banks to do this.

It most certainly was not. I had an ARM in 1991 and it got sold. There
has never been any impediment to mortgage lenders selling loans to
Wall Street or to other banks. A banking deregulation law passed in
1980 deprived the states of the authority to cap mortgage interest
rates. This is what gave rise to ARMS, no-doc and low-doc loans,
interest-only loans, etc.

patpowersspam

On Oct 9, 4:08 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 05:45:11 -0500, "The Moderator"
>
> <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote:
> >> I've never heard anyone explain exactly how it's all about oil.  Do
> >> you think that at some point the US is going to start taking oil from
> >> Iraq for free?  If you think about how much the war has cost, the US
> >> would have to take an awful lot of oil to break even.
>
> >Jon Stewart explained it in a comedic bit.  Carbon gets his news from Jon
> >Stewart.
>
> Comedy or not, I've never heard any reasonable explanation of how it's
> all about oil.

W thinks it is about oil. This month he announced his intention to
break a new law forbidding him to try to take control of the oil
supply.

It isn't about money. It is about seizing the oil supply because it
is needed to make modern war, and deny the oil to other nations who
might use it to make war. It doesn't matter how much it costs. Or so
they thought.

The Pearl Harbor attack was just a minor part of a successful
operation to seize Asia's oil and metal ore. Japan needed it to
continue the war.

John B.

On Oct 28, 12:21 pm, patpowerss...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 9, 4:08 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 05:45:11 -0500, "The Moderator"
>
> > <sparky@_engineer_.com> wrote:
> > >> I've never heard anyone explain exactly how it's all about oil.  Do
> > >> you think that at some point the US is going to start taking oil from
> > >> Iraq for free?  If you think about how much the war has cost, the US
> > >> would have to take an awful lot of oil to break even.
>
> > >Jon Stewart explained it in a comedic bit.  Carbon gets his news from Jon
> > >Stewart.
>
> > Comedy or not, I've never heard any reasonable explanation of how it's
> > all about oil.
>
> W thinks it is about oil.  This month he announced his intention to
> break a new law forbidding him to try to take control of the oil
> supply.
>
> It isn't about money.  It is about seizing the oil supply because it
> is needed to make modern war, and deny the oil to other nations who
> might use it to make war.  It doesn't matter how much it costs.  Or so
> they thought.
>
> The Pearl Harbor attack was just a minor part of a successful
> operation to seize Asia's oil and metal ore.  Japan needed it to
> continue the war.

Why else would the neocons who got us into this war have been talking
about democratizing the entire Middle East? so that we can have a
reliable supply of oil from friendly governments. You don't hear them
talking about democratizing Africa.

John B.

On Oct 28, 8:55 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 07:23:59 -0700 (PDT), "John B."
>
> <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Comedy or not, I've never heard any reasonable explanation of how it's
> >> all about oil.
>
> >It's not all about oil. But if Iraq didn't have oil, I'm quite sure we
> >wouldn't have invaded it.
>
> Afghanistan doesn't have oil and the US invaded it.  The US also
> carried out bombing campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo and they don't have
> oil.  

Hey, you've got me there, Jack. The Southern states don't have oil,
either, but that didn't stop the North from carrying out the War of
Northern Aggression now did it? I am clearly no match for you.