2002 Top Ten: Fat Cats

COMMENTS

Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View

<< < Page 11 / 16 > >>

willywilson 12/5/2012 | 12:55:20 AM

re: 2002 Top Ten: Fat Cats Dudes:

You all need to subscribe to "The Economist"

Dude! Good advice! In fact, everyone here should go online to the Economist and read their most recent two Technology Quarterly publications. There are some articles there regarding CLECs and how they used the wrong transmission technology and didn't sell circuit voice like they should have.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

beowulf888 12/5/2012 | 12:55:20 AM

re: 2002 Top Ten: Fat Cats Dudes:
You all need to subscribe to "The Economist". Unocal and Centgas consortium were schmoozing the Taliban back in '99 to get a pipeline through Afghanistan -- as an alternative to the Caspian pipeline (that was encountering significant political opposition in some quarters). As I recall, the Taliban upped their price and negotiations fell through (in 2001?).

Now, did Dubya go into Afghanistan just because the negotiations fell through? Well, even though I think that Dubya is his own personal axis-of-evil, I think he went into Afghanistan whip Osama's butt (too bad that he seems to have missed him). But now -- "Oh well, while we're here, howza about that pipeline, Mr. Karzai?"

Cynically yours (but not completely so)
--Beo

gardner wrote:
"I used to work with an Afghan who once worked at a large oil company in Dallas. He claims he saw a map a few years ago with a future path for a pipeline through Afghanistan."

willywilson replied:
"Something I learned in an elementary statistics class: Correlation does not equal causality."

then rjmacmahon wrote:
"Right, but FOX doesn't give any data towards causality either."

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

dodo 12/5/2012 | 12:55:13 AM

re: 2002 Top Ten: Fat Cats http://www.alternet.org/story....

Gardner

This thread is very interesting. By the way ,have you seen the above site and the conspiracy (ies) that it all boils down to OIL.

beowulf888:

Don't have to subscribe to the EComomist, here is an edifying statement:

http://www.house.gov/internati...

Good reading

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 12:55:01 AM

re: 2002 Top Ten: Fat Cats Don't have to subscribe to the EComomist, here is an edifying statement:

http://www.house.gov/internati...
________________

It's also worth noting that many oil execs testified at a congressional hearing about a year ago, where they discussed drilling off Alaska and about gasoline price fixing. (US gasoline pricing follows some interesting trends as if the pricing were set by a cartel.)

A point, relevant to this topic, (which will further anger BobbyMax) is that the execs would not commit to selling that Alaska oil in domestic markets. Their primary goal seem to be to sell it to Asian markets, or at least to make the most money however they could.

So this war is not only driven by the current excesses of western fuel consumptions (particularly in the US), it's also about existing power structures establishing their positions to take from future productions, where ever they may occur.

Another way to think of it is when International Harvester and their New York financing used the industrial combines as the vehicle to take from US farm production. The US farmers were put in debt for many generations. Unfortunately, the latest Farm Bill, passed for political reasons, just pushed those debt repayments off to the next generations.

To willy: Who pays? Not me, heh? Always somebody else pays? Let the Armed forces pay with their lives so Asian productivity can move into the hands of few? Did Wealth of Nations ever predict that? Urghh.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

photon_mon 12/5/2012 | 12:54:57 AM

re: 2002 Top Ten: Fat Cats Willy,

It took awhile, but I finally have the opportunity to respond. I agree with the majority of your replies, except below --- where you may have misunderstood me. Unfortunately hereGÇÖs more fuel for the fire. I know I'll catch some poster flak, but what the hell.

__________________________________________________

I wrote:
Walk softly, but carry a big stick.

You replied:
One of my misgivings about Bush's kid is that he's been talking like the coach of the Dallas Cowboys or something. I'd be a lot more comfortable if the man would shut the hell up and get the job done.

My reply:
I think that I know what you were trying to say. Teddy Roosevelt was of course famous for that quote, not Bush. I donGÇÖt know if Bush had attempted to reuse it. IGÇÖm not one for trite sayings (especially when they are in lieu of action), but this one rings true. The concept is that the threat of a timely and vicious reprisal is often all that is needed to discourage our enemies from supporting threats against us. Say what you will about the man, but Reagan instilled this type of healthy fear. ThatGÇÖs the point I was attemping to articulate.
__________________________________________________

I wrote:
And yes, by all means, try to avoid civilian casualties at all costs.

You replid:
At all costs? I'm sure glad Harry Truman didn't see it that way. One thing I give Clinton credit for is shedding the Democratic Party's post-Vietnam pacifism. I have no desire for the U.S. to go incinerate people, but I think the biggest mistake Jimmy Carter made was when, during the Iranian hostage crisis, he kept blathering on about how the lives of the hostages were paramount.

My reply:
A no-win argument GÇô IGÇÖm sure IGÇÖll get some flack for this one, from somebody. IGÇÖll stand by my original statement.But to elaborate, IGÇÖm all for killing two enemies for everyone of ours killed. Consequences need to be painful. But no reckless slaughter of civilians (a Mi Lai type of massacre, for example), unless there is no viable alternative; where it truly does compromise a necessary mission (cowardly enemies using them as shields, that sort of thing) and places our troops at greater risk in attempting too much precision.

As for Truman, I donGÇÖt argue with his decision to use the A-bomb. It was necessary to convince the numb-nuts among the enemy that further resistance was futile, and saved thousands and thousands of GI lives that an invasion would have consumed. But I do question his targeting of cities with high civilian populations, not once, but twice. ThatGÇÖs a lot of pawns. The Japanese commited a lot of atrocities, but none even close to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in scale. It was way more than an eye for an eye(or payback for Pearl Harbor).

IGÇÖm far from being a pacifist. In fact I believe that force is the only thing some of these present-day animals understand, respect and fear. IGÇÖd like to see 2-bad guys die for every innocent killed on 9/11, but thousands and thousands of Middle Eastern innocents would only (as another poster said) create more enemies hell-bent on vengeance.
__________________________________________________

You wrote:
And they say we've got a "liberal press." Could you possibly imagine the s*** that would have been made out of this utterly stupid play if Gore had been the president at the time? The only place this story showed up was in the New Yorker, and about a month later in a short piece tucked way inside the Washington Post.

My reply:
Right on, brother! Everything must go through the Dems vs. Reps. Political Media Filter.
If OUR decision: there was a valid reason.
If THEIR decision: what were they smoking?
__________________________________________________

You wrote:
Several months later, I read about a U.S. expedition into an Afghan village in which the American troops killed everyone there. At that point I thought to myself, maybe we have a chance.

My reply:
This scares me. Indiscriminant killing? Or were these all bad guys? How many women and children (see Mi Lai). If we become the same animals that we loathe, how can we say weGÇÖre better? Not everyone in a given zipcode is the enemy! In the same theatre of conflict, we have a whole village wiped out, while a house where the enemy is known to be hiding is spared. As inconsistent as how the death penalty is applied in this country (in one state, youGÇÖre zapped if you drive the getaway car GÇô in another, you get a life sentence for whacking a few people).
__________________________________________________

Finally, I agree with RJM (and other posters who expressed the same sentiment). Take OIL out of the equation, and the Middle East may as well be an extension of Africa, as far as our attention span goes. HereGÇÖs one guy hoping that hydrogen fuel (or a similar non-polluting, unlimited resource, U.S. job creating technology) becomes viable real soon.

In the interim, I already am planning to do my part, and have already chosen a hybrid gas-electric for my next car. In fact, if and when the day arrives that we no longer view gas guzzlers as status symbols, the better off weGÇÖll all be. Ditto for the emphasis on status and conspicuous consumption.

The best revenge on our Middle Eastern enemies? Make them insignificant, and turn the wealthy families and despots into poor ones - on a par with the have-nots.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

willywilson 12/5/2012 | 12:54:36 AM

re: 2002 Top Ten: Fat Cats This scares me. Indiscriminant killing? Or were these all bad guys? How many women and children (see Mi Lai). If we become the same animals that we loathe, how can we say weGÇÖre better? Not everyone in a given zipcode is the enemy!

Got news for you: They don't have zipcodes over there. People who will forget more than I will ever know about Central Asia say that searching for "the guilty" is a fool's errand.

In the same theatre of conflict, we have a whole village wiped out, while a house where the enemy is known to be hiding is spared.

It's absolutely nuts that Bush's people let an Air Force captain order Gen. Tommy Franks not to blow up that house. It's even crazier that the incident got so little attention in the U.S. media. "Free press?" Hah!

In the interim, I already am planning to do my part, and have already chosen a hybrid gas-electric for my next car. In fact, if and when the day arrives that we no longer view gas guzzlers as status symbols, the better off weGÇÖll all be.

By not implementing an oil conservation program after 9/11, Bush made a very serious error. The guy everyone loves to hate, Jimmy Carter, did this country a lot of good when his administration got serious about conservation in the 1970s.

The U.S. government should prohibit the sale of any vehicle that doesn't get at least 40 m.p.g. after a date certain -- maybe 5 years from now. And it should be forcing a new round of other conservation measures, too.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

photon_mon 12/5/2012 | 12:54:35 AM

re: 2002 Top Ten: Fat Cats Willy,

Dude, thanks for the reply. Good responses (which I agree with). Be advised that I used the term "zipcode" for convenience, not to be taken literally! Other than that, it looks like this tired old thread is a wrap.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

willywilson 12/5/2012 | 12:54:35 AM

re: 2002 Top Ten: Fat Cats Be advised that I used the term "zipcode" for convenience, not to be taken literally!

My reply was equally figurative, the meaning being, "It's a very different world over there. At the moment, Western judicial concepts don't fit."

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

photon_mon 12/5/2012 | 12:54:34 AM

re: 2002 Top Ten: Fat Cats Well, Willy, if we gained nothing else from this thread, at least we both learned how to make our text BOLD . World peace and solving the fuel dilemma cannot be far behind.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

techoriginol 12/4/2012 | 9:07:11 PM

re: 2002 Top Ten: Fat Cats We get reverse stock splits and pink slips while CEOs, CFOs, and other high execs plunder and rob the shareholders.

Most 15 year olds could have done a better job of managing companies like Lucent, Nortel, and Qwest than these bozos did. Billion dollar aquisions of trashy companies like Ascent, Xros, etc, elimination of product lines and intellectial capital, while these executive idiots rake in the hundreds of millions. With this type of philosopht these companies DESERVE to go belly up.

And I always thought that movie stars and pro atheletes are overpaid. Well at least they entertain us and keep our TVs on.

Pretty disgusting isn't it.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

<< < Page 11 / 16 > >>