http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060330/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela_oil_offensive_3


Whats the move after Chavez sends troops in and takes over the exxon holdings?

We should invade.

Why would he need to send in troops? It's in his country's legal territory.

Corporations, as a rule, don't get in shooting matches. They get the US government to do it for them.

This will be an interesting series of events to watch unfold.

Chavez is playing the role of Robin Hood well, and may indeed be able to keep the "masses" in his corner longer than some might have thought. He has also been showing that either he or his advisors are paying attention to the world stage and the changing dynamics of world powers, and his rejection of the west will undoubtably play well in China and Iran as well as neighboring countries.

At this point, there really is little available as far as options to react to his moves, as he has yet to do anything that would warrant a response from the U.N. If this does reach a level where sanctions might be considered there will be less support due to the growing demand for oil products in China, and the strain that has put on everyone else's supply.

The only way any type of military action could ever be considered is if he were to send in his military against American citizens who had broken no laws, and in that scenario without substantial deaths it would be difficult to convince Congress, let alone the American people, to sanction military action, with the current unease regarding the Iraq conflict.

He is the elected leader of his country, and along with the other elected governing officials he has decided to change how a major economic resource within his country is going to be handled. It may piss off a lot of folks, and a lot of countries, but that is business.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
–Dick Cheney April 30, 2001

"Venezuela has ranked among the top four US oil suppliers for decades and currently supplies approximately 11 % of US oil needs."
-http://www.gasandoil.com/ (volume 10, issue #3 - Thursday, February 10, 2006)

Obviously Chavez is planning on undermining our effort with Iran by no longer allowing Venezuelan oil into the US. A 10% reduction will cause us to look to other sources, tightening the market. This combined with UN sanctions on Iran and their oil threats will pretty much bring about fairly severe repercussions as to the price of oil.

Its time we realized that national security means we lessen our dependence on a material we do not, nor can we ever produce enough of, causing us to depend on regimes that wish us harm.

And ANWR and the Canadian oil sands are 10-15 years from doing us any good. If they are ever capable of it.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
–Dick Cheney April 30, 2001 You disagree with this statement?

completely

Cheney seems to believe that reducing consumption of Oil is nice, if people feel like doing it... but not that importantly really. Akin to recycling newspapers or drinking 8 glasses of water a day.

"The biggest threat to America and its values today is not communism, authoritarianism or Islamism. It's petrolism. Petrolism is the term for the corrupting, antidemocratic governing practices - in oil states from Russia to Nigeria and Iran - that result from a long run of $60-a-barrel oil. Petrolism is the politics of using oil income to buy off one's citizens with subsidies and government jobs, using oil and gas exports to intimidate or buy off one's enemies, and using oil profits to build up one's internal security forces and army to keep oneself ensconced in power, without any transparency or checks and balances.

When a nation's leaders can practice petrolism, they never have to tap their people's energy and creativity; they simply have to tap an oil well. And therefore politics in a petrolist state is not about building a society or an educational system that maximizes its people's ability to innovate, export and compete. It is simply about who controls the oil tap.
In petrolist states like Russia, Iran, Venezuela and Sudan, people get rich by being in government and sucking the treasury dry - so they never want to cede power. In non-petrolist states, like Taiwan, Singapore and Korea, people get rich by staying outside government and building real businesses
No matter what happens in Iraq, we cannot dry up the swamps of authoritarianism and violent Islamism in the Middle East without also drying up our consumption of oil - thereby bringing down the price of crude. A democratization policy in the Middle East without a different energy policy at home is a waste of time, money and, most important, the lives of our young people.
That's because there is a huge difference in what these bad regimes can do with $20-a-barrel oil compared with the current $60-a-barrel oil. It is no accident that the reform era in Russia under Boris Yeltsin, and in Iran under Mohammad Khatami, coincided with low oil prices. When prices soared again, petrolist authoritarians in both societies reasserted themselves.
Our energy gluttony fosters and strengthens various kinds of petrolist regimes. It emboldens authoritarian petrolism in Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Sudan and Central Asia. It empowers Islamist petrolism in Sudan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. It even helps sustain communism in Castro's Cuba, which survives today in part thanks to cheap oil from Venezuela. Most of these petrolist regimes would have collapsed long ago, having proved utterly incapable of delivering a modern future for their people, but they have been saved by our energy excesses.
Enough of this Bush-Cheney nonsense that conservation, energy efficiency and environmentalism are some hobby we can't afford. I can't think of anything more cowardly or un-American"

When you use someone else's strawman argument slash response, the least you could do is source it for us.

Got hay?

You're using alot of it lately.

What strawman?
American oil gluttony leads to 60/barrell oil. Conservation and more fuel efficiency by America would drop oil prices and make us more competitive. Cheney dismisses this approach as "unsound" and doesnt want to decrease american intake, but simply find more sources.
You act like someone taught you a new word with your "omg strawman" parroting. Im fairly convinced you barely comprehend what it means.

btw: Friedman, Thomas

I don't see how you go from "Chavez is using his fortunate position to make foreign companies pay his country more for its oil" to "Chavez is going to cut off the US and undermine all our foreign policy."

Heh.

Because thats what he is doing.
http://www.thedailyjournalonline.com/article.asp?ArticleId=231276&CategoryId=10717

Right now he is focusing on the large land owners.. taking over their property. But you can see what he is doing in regards to the oil companies.. ever higher and increasingly unreasonable demands until the oil companies wont pay any longer.

If you dont think he is going to claim ownership of the oil fields in Venezula, you just arent paying attention. He is a hard core "socialist" who lists Fidel Castro as his hero and mentor.
little refresher for you
The analysis of people's relationships with the means of production is one element that stands at the basis of Marxism. Karl Marx focused on labor questions. He considered it a reification to treat labor as just another "factor" in production; it implied an inversion of means and ends, so that people were effectively used as things. The working classes are the principal productive forces of society, since their labor creates and conserves material wealth. The bourgeoisie, meanwhile, comprises people who own and trade in means of production as capital assets, and who hire workers to work for them, using those means of production. The bourgeois as property owner can obtain a profit from the work of his employees because the value of output exceeds the outlay on wages and materials. Therefore, the bourgeois obtains a surplus value from the work of his employees. In the Marxist view, this constitutes exploitation of the workers

Marx's terms are often employed in economic analysis by socialists who advocate public ownership of some or all of the means of production. The affinity between labor movement causes and this advocacy is very strong - and often shared by social democrats, socialists, communists and greens. Marx's analysis in particular helped to make clear the key differences between human capital and "labor" or "human resources" - which earlier political economy favoring labor value (e.g. that of David Ricardo) had not done.

Marxists define economic systems in terms of how the means of production are used, and which social class controls them. Thus, in capitalism, the means of production are controlled by the bourgeoisie (the "capitalists" - the owners of capital), while in socialism they are controlled by the people's elected representatives and in communism they are controlled collectively by the people themselves.

No, but maybe you are right. I mean, its only oil, the most valuable commodity on this planet.
No.. your right. they probably have no other plans for the oil, (http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/03/08/en_eco_art_08A680591.shtml) not like they would want to ship it across the sea to China or anything
(http://english.eluniversal.com/2006/03/08/en_eco_art_08A680591.shtml)

Venezuela already HAS claimed ownership of the fields of Venezula -- it's Venezulan resources on Venezulan land. This is no different than how oil companies pay (via tax) states like Texas and Alaska to extract oil there. Chavez is just about the only government other than some elements in Papau New Guinea that have ever stood up to big oil interests. When Alaska periodically renegotiates taxes, it's 45th page news.

You seem to think Chavez is out to start some kind of oil crisis, which is likely not in the best interests of Venezula, ergo why I doubt he is. He's merely doing what any other country, including us, would do in a similiar position: strengthen his economic base while conditions favor it. Not being tied to US importation is great for Venezula. Not so great for us, but hey, welcome to a global economy.

There is a huge difference.

They do not control WHO the oil is sold to. I think that is the key here. Dont look at it from economic perspective, but look at it from a geo-political one. Im fairly certain that Chavez and Castro would like nothing more than a strong Chinese presence in South America to act as a counter balance to American influence. Tying Chinas oil supply to South America could be an attempt to bring in a foreign power, a safeguard against US actions. Chavez is spending time and resources training his people to guard against a US invasion. I have no doubt he is suffering from some sort of paranoia.. or perhaps has plans that he feels will bring about US action.
Training (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060305/wl_nm/venezuela_military_dc;_ylt=A86.I1UcwSREvzUAWgRn.3Q A;_ylu=X3oDMTBidHQxYjh2BHNlYwN5bnN0b3J5)
Obviously Chavez is hugely distrustful and resentful of the US, who he has accused for trying to kill him, and Castro would love to have a new Communist Ally for which to help prop up his state. Another thing to consider is that both these men are true believers. I have no doubt in my mind that Chavez puts ideology above profit.

We continue to pay 60/Barrel keeping people like Chavez in power. A sound economic policy wouldnt nurture hostile regimes that will eventually use our own money to try to harm us.

You act like someone taught you a new word with your "omg strawman" parroting. Im fairly convinced you barely comprehend what it means.I accuse you of being a defeatist like Cronkite, and you respond with a long rant about why we lost in Vietnam. Looked like a strawman to me. You're doing basically the same thing here. /shrug

Cheney seems to believe that reducing consumption of Oil is nice, if people feel like doing it... but not that importantly really. Akin to recycling newspapers or drinking 8 glasses of water a day.First, let's simplify what Cheney said...

"Conservation ... is not a sufficient basis for a ...comprehensive energy policy."

We can't Jimmy Carter our way into economic prospertity and security. You're either soundly clueless in basic economics or confused about what comprehensive means. Since I'm certain you (being a teacher) know what comprehensive means, I'm convinced you have very little understanding of economics.
American oil gluttony leads to 60/barrell oil. Conservation and more fuel efficiency by America would drop oil prices and make us more competitive. "American oil gluttony"... and China's and Japan's and the rest of the industrialized world leads to "60/barrell oil." In the short run you're right. Whether we're becoming more independant for oil (drilling in ANWR & Colorado/Canada oil-shale technologies) or conserving more, prices will fall and we'll become more productive.

Then the last half of that economics text comes into play and the world (including us) use more of it. Prices go back up, for everyone in the long run.

Ask the British how being almost completely independant for their oil and natural gas (from the North Sea) helped them when Opec wanted to flex their muscles back in 1979. It didn't. It slammed their economy just as it did the rest of the industrialized world. Welcome to the global market.

Going back to the ANWR discussions, you've stated that all of the oil should go to the US. That's fine and dandy. I'm sure Exxon or whoever pipes it out of that prestine wilderness and force sales it into a contrived market in the US will really appreciate your generosity at the next stockholder meeting. China gets more oil on the global market and the US ends up spending more for the oil we get.

If we conserve more oil or become completely independant, it's not going to help the citizens of these petrolist states one bit as long as there is a global market for their product.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1608685/posts

little more later.. pressed for time lately