 | Winchester Lets Brown Have Both Barrels | The Oil Drum: Europe | European Energy Conference, Aberdeen 22nd February 2008 |  |
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Is there a market out there taking bets on whether or not the U.S. invades Venezuela? Probably not a great idea, even in the eyes of the Bush administration. Total chaos in the world oil market would probably not be timely in helping the Republicans to retain power
A few months ago, one of the talking heads on the Fox News Channel (one of their staff) asked if Chavez cutting off oil supplies to the US was equivalent to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the US. Of course, Chavez has to sell the oil somewhere, so presumably the oil not sent to the US would be offset, for the time being, by oil from elsewhere. Of course, IMO all of this is against a backdrop of declining oil exports. However, the Fox comments do illustrate the thinking by some Neocons.
On the other hand, IMO most of the US is clearly suffering from "Empire Fatigue," which is a point that "Mish" discusses. He has an interesting take on Barack Obama and the war in Iraq. He is making the case that there is a groundswell of support for pulling out of Iraq--not only because of the bloodshed, but because of the financial cost:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-next-president-...
Excerpt:
As a political slogan, it has the major advantage of being totally true.
I've heard this, "I'm a uniter, not a divider!" line once before from a politician. I'm not saying this time it isn't different (it is different), but to argue against that point, exit polls in California suggested anyway that the people who were sick of Iraq tended to vote to Obama, those concerned about the economy tended to vote more for Clinton:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/the-issues-primary/
Hard to say since that war in Iraq is rather costly.
I have heard "I'm a uniter, not a divider!" and also "you are either with us or you are against us". Which is it and in which case? Can you believe anything this person says at any time?
tstreet,
I don't know of prediction for this event. Intrade may start one.
It has one for an attack on Iran.
www.intrade.com