Anti-war crowd are demoralizing our troops.

[gopher]

Who claimed to be a "warrior"?

Who defended someone who is openly anti-Catholic?

And yet, you continually call me anti-Christian!

Yeah, lots of credibility, there.

 

[CDNBear]

Who claimed to be a "warrior"?

Who defended someone who is openly anti-Catholic?

And yet, you continually call me anti-Christian!

Yeah, lots of credibility, there.

And you just oooooooozzzzzzze, cred buddy?

Give it a rest gopher, you win. You're my hereo. I don't now why I ever bothered to battle the big gopher. Oh woe is me, I'll have to apply for economic aid from the Americans now. I'm beaten and bitter.

All hail supereme dear leader gopher, master of the universe and the intergalactic dominion.
Are you happy now, can we all grow up and go on to talk about adult things now?

 

[gopher]

Who Says Troops Are Demoralized?

http://www.patriotdaily.com/bm/troops/co/index.shtml




10-27-2006: "U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006" "An overwhelming majority, 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the year. Among Reserves 90% favor withdrawal compared to 83% of the National Guard, 70% of the Army, and 58% of the Marines. Moreover, about three-quarters of National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within 6 months."
Also: 63% of Americans want Congress to set timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq.

10-25-2006: "Grass-Roots Group of Troops Petitions Congress for Pullout From Iraq" "The unusual appeal -- the first of its kind in the Iraq war, organizers say -- makes use of a legal protection afforded by the Military Whistle-Blower Protection Act, which provides that members of the military, acting in their capacity as citizens, can send a protected communication to Congress without reprisal."
Also: "Antiwar Web Site Created by Troops"
Also: "The number of military service members protesting the Iraq War through official communication to their members of Congress nearly doubled since Monday to 118 soldiers and Marines."

10-23-2006: "Active-Duty Troops Launch Campaign to Press Congress to End U.S. Occupation of Iraq" "For the first time since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, active- duty members of the military are asking Members of Congress to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq and bring American soldiers home."

10-20-2006: "Top US general says Rumsfeld is inspired by God" The "top US general defended the leadership of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying it is inspired by God: 'He leads in a way that the good Lord tells him is best for our country.'"

10-16-2006: "Officer's Refusal to Fight Sparks Debate" "An Asian American soldier faces a court-martial for his refusal to serve in Iraq. His stand stirs anger and admiration among Japanese Americans who remember World War II."

10-5-2006: "U.S. European Commander Confirms Quotes" In Woodward's Book The commander's "comments suggest that active-duty generals are beginning to criticize the defense secretary and the Iraq war with the harshness that several retired generals have used recently."

9-9-2006: Deserting Soldier to Return to Face Penalties and Speak Against Bush’s War “Darrell Anderson, a U.S. Army deserter who fought in Iraq and sought refugee status in Toronto, has decided to return home and face a possible court-martial — against his mother's wishes.Anita Anderson said her son, whose life has been pretty "messed up" by his Iraqi experience, believes he has to speak out against President George W. Bush in the United States, even if it means a trial or going to jail.”

9-2-2006: AWOL Soldier Surrenders with Sheehan Group’s Help A US soldier, AWOL from duty for 19 months and “tired of running” sought and received help from Cindy Sheehan’s anti-war group in turning himself in to military authorities.

9-1-2006: More Soldiers Seeking CO Status Smaller but significant numbers of soldiers seeking CO status: "Observers say these developments are reminiscent of the Vietnam War, when the refusal to fight by hundreds of thousands of soldiers was a major force toward U.S. withdrawal."

8-28-2006: "Scores of American troops are deserting — even from the front line in Iraq." Pentagon says "40,000 troops have deserted their posts" since 2000: There were 50,000 conscientious objectors at the peak of Vietnam war.

8-27-2006: "Soldiers' Families Question Rumsfeld on Deployment" Rumsfeld "received a mixed reception from a crowd that offered more applause for the questions asked than the answers provided" and could not answer some questions.

8-25-2006: Bush Refuses Iraq War Chat With Soldier's Widow The widow told Bush "it's time to stop the bleeding," but Bush only responded by saying "there was no point in us having a philosophical discussion about the pros and cons of the war."

8-23-2006: ACLU: Defending Free Speech Rights of Lt. Ehren Watada “Soldiers should not be court-martialed" for publicly stating legal and moral opposition to Iraq war.

8-19-2006: Soldier "Putting the Iraq War on Trial" "An Army officer who refused duty in Iraq goes to court with a novel argument: he had a duty to disobey because the war is illegal."

8-16-2006: "Iraq War Vets' Support for Lt. Watada Growing" "The Army would like to depict Lieutenant Watada as a lone military voice of dissent: a renegade upon whom enlisted men and officers alike look with scorn and derision. But Clifton Hicks is joining a growing number of Iraq war combat veterans who support the Lieutenant. And, he says, for every veteran who supports Lieutenant Watada publicly, there are possibly hundreds more who feel they cannot speak out."

8-14-2006: "General Hears Marines' Concerns in Iraq" Tone of some questions show troops have doubts about "long-term viability of the U.S. military mission," which military blames on fact troops are "not immune to the discussions they see in public communications."

8-8-2006: "Unwilling Troops Obtain Legal Aid, Solace in Canada" "Once across the border, they are met by a network of Vietnam War-era draft evaders, Quakers and anti-war activists, who are waiting with lawyers, free housing, job offers and organic groceries."

8-7-2006: "Thousands of Troops Say They Won’t Fight" "Since 2000, about 40,000 troops from all branches of the military have deserted, the Pentagon says."

6-22-2006: Sarah Olson: "Lieutenant Watada Refused Iraq Deployment Orders Today" "First Lieutenant Ehren Watada became the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse orders to deploy to the Iraq war."

6-21-2006: Troops Support Murtha's Withdrawal Position At a welcome home ceremony this week for returning troops, "the crowd cheered when a Murtha aide welcomed the troops on the congressman's behalf."

6-21-2006: "Woman Soldier Refuses Return to Iraq, Claiming Sexual Harassment" "A female soldier in the US military has refused to serve in Iraq, accusing some of her superiors of using the war zone as a pretext for sexual harassment."

6-18-2006: "A DESERTER’S STORY" More than 6,000 men and women have deserted from US army "because they are sickened by the bloodshed in Iraq; because they believe the war is illegal; because they are on the verge of nervous breakdown; and because they are having to buy their own boots or are not being given enough food and water": People are hiding deserters in "attics and cellars because they are being sought by the military police," particularly GIs who publicly condemn the war.
Also: "Sheehan Supports U.S. Deserters in Canada"
Also: Bush Hunting Down Vietnam War Deserters

6-17-2006: Peter Laufer: "The Marine Who Saw Too Much" "A former lance corporal explains why he intentionally failed a drug test to avoid going back to war-torn Iraq."

6-16-2006: "Troops Refusing Iraq Duty for Reasons of Conscience Have Sanctuary" "Prompted by a Fort Lewis Army officer's decision to refuse to fight in Iraq, the First United Methodist Church of Tacoma has declared itself a sanctuary for servicemen and servicewomen who also don't want to go to Iraq."





Well, you can't blame the antiwar crowd for all that!

 

[CDNBear]

I said you win gopher, go egg the church ladies while they have tea, if it will make you feel better. I won't discuss anything with you again. There isn't a point. You are right all the time. So go start a thread where you can pat yourself on the back all day and us idiots will just watch in awe.

 

[gopher]

OK Bear, Let's Talk Issues ...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15419.htm

Iraq's Prime Minister Blames U.S. For Chaos​

Iraq's al-Maliki sharply delineates differences with U.S. leadership

By JAY PRICE
McClatchy Newspapers

10/27/06 "Mercury News" -- -- BAGHDAD, Iraq — Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki continued his open dispute with American officials Thursday, blaming the United States-led coalition for Iraq's chaos and faulting its military strategy.

His sharp comments, in an interview with Reuters, came as the White House and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sought to play down the idea of a growing rift between the United States and the Iraq government.

Rumsfeld urged critics of administration policy "to just back off" and "relax."

According to a partial transcript of the interview distributed by Reuters, al-Maliki said he thought that Iraqi troops, left to their own devices, could re-establish order in Iraq in six months, not the 12 to 18 months that top U.S. commander Gen. William Casey had predicted Tuesday.

Al-Maliki offered a different set of priorities for fighting violence than U.S. officials, who've said the greatest threat to Iraq comes from death squads aligned with Shiite Muslim militias. In recounting a meeting with the head of one of those militias, cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, al-Maliki said he and al-Sadr agreed "that the efforts for all political groups should be focused on the most dangerous challenge, which is al-Qaida and the Saddam Baathists." Both those groups are made up primarily of Sunni Muslims.

Al-Maliki also said U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad was "not accurate" when he said Tuesday that the Iraqi government had agreed to a timetable for dealing with Iraq's problems.

The interview came as Bush administration officials in Washington continued to try to explain their position on setting "benchmarks" for Iraqi government actions. With just days to go before the midterm congressional election, Democrats and some Republicans have suggested that the U.S. begin withdrawing troops if the Iraqi government doesn't meet goals on time.

Rumsfeld said Thursday that there'd be no set dates for Iraqi leaders to meet nor any penalties imposed if they failed to meet goals.

He also said U.S. officials planned to increase spending on Iraq's army and police, but didn't say how much. The $70 billion in war spending that lawmakers tacked on to the 2007 defense-spending bill includes $1.7 billion to train and equip Iraq's security forces.

In Iraq, U.S. and Iraqi forces set up roadblocks Thursday and launched round-the-clock aerial surveillance of Baghdad as their search for an American soldier who may have been kidnapped entered its third day.

"We're using all assets in our arsenal to find this American soldier, and the government of Iraq is doing everything that it can also at every level," said Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq. "Make no mistake: We will not stop looking for our service member."

The search was so intense, Caldwell said, that military officials think it may have contributed to a sudden drop in the level of violence in the city, which had reached record highs in recent weeks. Caldwell said the violence had declined the last two days, though he cautioned that the reduction also might be the result of the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.


He declined to provide details of the search for the soldier, who's been described as an American of Iraqi descent. Family members told U.S. officials that the soldier, who was a translator, came to visit them in central Baghdad. Shortly after he arrived, three carloads of masked gunman stormed the house and took him away in handcuffs, family members said.

Baghdad residents reported that parts of Sadr City, a slum stronghold of Shiite militias and death squads, were blockaded. For much of the day every entrance but one also was blocked into the central district, where the missing soldiers' family lived.

Violence continued elsewhere. The U.S. military announced Thursday that four Marines and a sailor had been killed in combat Wednesday, raising to 96 the number of American deaths in Iraq so far in October. All but four were killed in action, making the month's combat toll the worst for U.S. troops in two years.

McClatchy correspondent Drew Brown contributed to this story from Washington.​

In Afghanistan and in Iraq, Bush is being blamed for the chaos. Demoralization of troops, Iraqi civilians or administrators, and the home crowd is NOT being caused by antiwar people as you and your ilk (not elk) believe. What is your briliant answer to these posts?


I won't hold my breath waiting for an honest answer.

 

[CDNBear]

No, children are born innocent and hopefully with empathy and then become polluted with all the prejudices we give them.

Is it pollution or is it the passing on of ones perceptions. Beyond the ignorance of bigotry, is passing on what one has learned to their children pollution or education?

 

[gopher]

Another Reason For Low Morale?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102600133.html

Afghan Officials Say Dozens of Civilians Died in NATO Military Strike

By Allauddin Khan
Associated Press
Friday, October 27, 2006; Page A13

LAY KUNDI, Afghanistan, Oct. 26 -- Dozens of civilians were killed in a NATO military strike against suspected Taliban insurgents, Afghan officials said Thursday. Villagers fled the southern region by car and donkey, and hundreds attended a funeral for about 20 people buried in a mass grave.
The civilian death toll, estimated by Afghan officials at between 30 and 85, including many women and children, is among the highest in foreign military action here since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.


A German soldier sitting atop of a tank watches the area around Feisabad Airport in Afghanistan, Tuesday July 18, 2006. Germany's Defense Ministry said Wednesday Oct. 25, 2006 it was investigating photos published by the country's biggest-selling newspaper that appear to show German troops in Afghanistan posing with a skull. The Bild daily said the macabre pictures, one of which it printed on its front page Wednesday, showed German peacekeepers near the capital, Kabul, in early 2003. (Michael Hanschke - AP

NATO said a preliminary review found that 12 civilians were killed in the clashes Tuesday in the Panjwayi district of Kandahar province. But the alliance could not say if they had died because of Taliban or NATO action.
Maj. Luke Knittig, a spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force, said as many as 70 insurgents may have been killed in three clashes. The fighting took place in or around the villages of Lay Kundi and Mirwisa Mina. According to Knittig, Taliban fighters attacked NATO forces, drawing return artillery fire and airstrikes aimed at them.
Bismallah Afghanmal, a provincial council member, said fighters fled into civilian houses, which were then targeted by NATO forces.
Mark Laity, a NATO spokesman, said: "With insurgents who regard the population as a form of human shield for themselves, it obviously makes life very difficult for us, but it does not stop us from making every effort to ensure that we minimize any problems."
But villagers and local government officials denounced NATO and blamed the government for a lack of security. "The people are not forgetting the deaths of their children after a simple 'sorry,' " Afghanmal said.
"Everyone is very angry at the government and the coalition. There was no Taliban," Abdul Aye, who lives in Mirwisa Mina, said through tears at the mass funeral in Kandahar city. He said 22 members of his family were killed. "These tragedies just keep continuing."
Death tolls in remote military action in Afghanistan are difficult to determine, and estimates often vary widely. Also in question is who can be considered a civilian and who is a fighter.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly condemned civilian deaths caused by Western forces. A week ago, after nine villagers were killed during another NATO operation in Kandahar province, he urged the alliance to use "maximum caution" to avoid civilian casualties.
Tuesday's violence in Panjwayi came a month after NATO launched a major offensive in the district. The alliance said more than 500 insurgents were killed in the earlier operation, which the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. David Richards, called a "significant success."
Richards last month said reconstruction and development efforts, which many officers see as critical for winning over Afghans after the military action, would soon begin in the region. But since then, heavy fighting has broken out.






With news of soldiers posing with skulls and deaths of civilians, the crowd shows further hatred for the foreign invaders. Therefore, there is no basis for blaming antiwar people back home for demoralization.

 

[CDNBear]

LMAO that is some wild BS right there- so I guess we (folks who think the war is a sham and a joke) will be rounded up as "Illegal Enemy combatants" soon for trying to kill the troops in Afghanistan???

TOTALLY ridiculous. If there's enough boneheads willing to leave our troop contingent there til there's none left, then some sort of "god" construct is the only thing that's gonna save them, since apparently it is now in vogue to criticize those who would end the farcical "mission" before we lose anymore lives as being the "Killers" of our men (which is weird, I don't know if it's exactly Irony, but isn't wanting the troops OUT of the way of possible pointless death sorta of trying to keep them alive??)

WOW that's a good one- BTW I don't support any party currently, so keep that in mind while you try to paint me as whatever

I'm with you on the mission, I think it was ill concieved and poorly planned, but what do you say about supporting the Troops. If you are against supporting them, why? Caracal, had a great response to that question, I was just curious as to your position.

 

[gopher]

Majority Of Canadians Oppose War!

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/breuropera/237.php?nid=&id=&pnt=237&lb=breu


British and Canadians Criticize Leaders for Following U.S. Lead

Polls Show Weak Support for Missions in Iraq and Afghanistan

Two of President Bush’s closest allies—Great Britain’s Tony Blair and Canada’s Stephen Harper—have alienated voters by seeming to follow the United States’ lead on policy toward the Middle East. Majorities in both nations now oppose their governments’ indefinite commitment to U.S.-led operations in Iraq and the NATO mission in Afghanistan.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W. Bush at the White House in May 2006 (White House photo/Shealah Craighead)
In contrast, French President Jacques Chirac and Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, whose government has been battered by scandals, have seen their sagging approval ratings rise since distancing themselves from the United States and Israel by calling for an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon.

A large majority of British voters—including most Labor party supporters—want Prime Minister Tony Blair to pursue policies that are more independent of the Bush Administration. An ICM poll taken for the Guardian newspaper found that 63 percent agreed with the statement that Tony Blair had made Britain “too close to the U.S.A.” Only a third thought that relations between the two countries were “about right.” A mere 3 percent thought Britain should be closer to the United States.
The desire for greater distance between Bush and Blair included most Labor party supporters (54%) and strong majorities of Conservatives (68%) and Liberal Democrats (83%).
A majority of Canadians think Stephen Harper, Canada’s Conservative Prime Minister, is following Washington’s lead by backing Israel in its battle with Hezbollah. Most Canadians want their government to remain neutral in the conflict.

A poll for the Toronto Globe and Mail by the Strategic Counsel, conducted July 27-30, found that 53 per cent thought Harper backed Israel “because it is in line with the position of U.S. President Bush and his administration.” Only one in five (19 percent) thought their prime minister based his support for Israel on principle.
More than three out of four Canadians (77%) believe Canada should remain neutral in the conflict. Sixteen percent thought Canada should back Israel and only one percent favored supporting Hezbollah. The perception that the Canadian Prime Minister is too eager to back U.S. polices overseas may have contributed to the declining support for conservatives over the last few months. Since mid-April, Conservative support has slipped from 41 percent to 32 percent, according to polls by Decima Research.
Chirac Gets a Much-Needed Lift

Jacques Chirac’s popularity hit record lows last month, not only for his presidency but for all French presidents since Charles de Gaulle founded the Fifth Republic in 1958. A poll by the Ifop institute for the Journal du Dimanche newspaper taken June 8-16 found that only 27 percent were satisfied with Chirac’s performance while 70 percent disapproved. Villepin fared even worse: only 23 percent approved of the prime minister. The two right-wing leaders, who abandoned labor reforms last spring in the face of massive student protests, have also been weakened by scandals over the management of partly state-owned companies and allegations of political dirty tricks.
But Chirac’s outspoken insistence on the need for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon appears to have given him a boost among the French public. The most recent Ifop survey, taken July 20-21, shows an 11-point jump in Chirac’s approval ratings over the past month: Thirty-eight percent said they were satisfied with the French president. Villepin’s approval rose five points to 28 percent.
British, Canadian Support for Troops in Iraq, Afghanistan Softens
The British polls also indicate weak popular support for participation in joint military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Canadians are becoming increasingly disillusioned with their mission in Afghanistan.
Few Britons believe that the presence of British forces is “helping to improve the situation” in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Guardian/ICM poll. Less than a fifth (19%) believed British forces were helping Iraq; more than seven in ten said the mission made either “no difference” (35%) or “things worse” (36%). Results were similar on Afghanistan. Less than a quarter (23%) thought British forces were helping the country; nearly two-thirds thought their presence either made no difference (34%) or made things worse (29%).
Seven out of ten Britons believe that by stationing troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the government is “overstretching our military resources.”
Support for the mission in Afghanistan is also sliding among Canadians. A majority of Canadians (52%) now believe that “Canadian troops should not be deployed in Afghanistan and that they should be brought home as soon as possible,” an Ipsos-Reid poll taken July 25-27 found. The proportion of Canadians believing their troops should not be in Afghanistan has risen six points since March, according to the pollster.
Canada has about 2,200 troops in Afghanistan, most of whom are stationed in the southern province of Kandahar. Islamic insurgents from the revived Taliban militia have stepped up attacks on the NATO forces there, which took command of military operations in southern Afghanistan from the United States. Canada first deployed troops to the Central Asian nation four years ago, shortly after the U.S. invasion, but 15 of its 23 combat fatalities have occurred over the last six months, including four deaths in one day on Aug. 4, after this survey was completed.
A poll by the Strategic Counsel taken July 13-16 found that four out of ten Canadians (41%) wanted to bring Canadian troops “home now” from Afghanistan. Thirty-four percent favored allowing them to stay for a “limited period of time—two or more years” and 21 percent thought they should “stay as long as it takes to stabilize the country.”
A robust majority of Canadians (66%) supported joining the U.S.-led mission in Afghanistan when their troops first deployed there in January 2002, according to Ipsos-Reid. That support had declined to 57 percent by May 2006.









While this poll was taken in late summer, there is no evidence that its numbers are now in favor of continuing the war.

 

[BitWhys]

I'm with you on the mission, I think it was ill concieved and poorly planned, but what do you say about supporting the Troops. If you are against supporting them, why? Caracal, had a great response to that question, I was just curious as to your position.

Personally I'm all for them and for that very reason think its our job as citizens to kick as much bureaucratic ass as we can and keep trying to get the real show on the road.

I am writing further to your previous correspondence on Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

Many Canadians have written to me during the last few months in support for the NDP's position on Afghanistan. This support is greatly appreciated. I firmly believe that we are a nation of facilitators not occupiers, we are a people committed to the ideals of building bridges not burning them and we must not allow that legacy of good work to falter.

A good opposition not only opposes, but proposes. So in that spirit, I want you to know about the NDP's made-in-Canada plan for Afghanistan. An NDP-led federal government would:

- Give notice that Canada will withdraw from the search-and-kill combat mission in Kandahar.
- Work with NATO partners, the Afghan government, and other affected parties to find a political solution through capacity building and a comprehensive peace process.
- Focus Canada's role in Afghanistan on humanitarian aid, reconstruction and development, with appropriate security measures.

In contrast to our plan, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has silenced Canada's independent voice on foreign policy. Following the previous Liberal government's path, today's Conservatives have turned their backs on our respected, proven peace-building and peace-keeping traditions by committing Canadian troops to the aggressive search-and-kill combat mission in southern Afghanistan which is fuelling the escalation of violence. From the emails and letters I receive it is clear that everyday Canadians know that:

- This Bush-style combat mission will not create the conditions for long-term security.
- The mission is ill-defined, unbalanced, and without a clear exit strategy.
- For every $1 in humanitarian aid and reconstruction, the Conservative government is spending $9 on military combat in Afghanistan.

The fact of the matter is that the discussion at hand should be about if this mission is the right role for Canada and - not - which Party supports our troops. If you have not done so already, I invite you to sign our on-line petition, Support our troops. Bring 'em home, which can be found at: http://www.ndp.ca/page/4121.

Again, I appreciate hearing from you on this troubling matter. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage you to pass along this email. All the best.

Sincerely,


Jack Layton, MP (Toronto-Danforth)
Leader, Canada's New Democrats

He doesn't have as much reference to existing frameworks as I'd prefer, but at least he has the general idea. It IS just a mailer.

 

[gopher]

yes, just another reason why American civilians and troops are so demoralized about Bush's war

meanwhile, Bush's wealthy elitist oil barons are rejoicing because of record oil profits:


http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/15863841.htm

Chevron 3Q profit soars to $5 billion

MICHAEL LIEDTKE

Associated Press

SAN RAMON, Calif. - Chevron Corp.'s quarterly profit surpassed $5 billion for the first time, putting an exclamation point on the oil industry's latest earnings bonanza.
Topped off by the record results released Friday by Chevron, five of the world's largest oil companies produced a combined net income of $31.6 billion during the three months ended in September.
None of the brethren grew faster than San Ramon-based Chevron, whose third-quarter profit rose 40 percent from last year. It marked the third time in the past year that its quarterly results have hit a new high.
Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, fared the best in terms of sheer earnings power, with a third-quarter profit of $10.5 billion - the second highest in its history.
This might be as good as it gets, for the near term at least, now that crude oil prices are hovering around $60 per barrel, down from a peak of $78.40 in mid-July.
"As far as record earnings are concerned, the game is over," Oppenheimer & Co. analyst Fadel Gheit said.
The moneymaking formula followed a familiar pattern as the industry benefited from lofty oil prices and wide profit margins at the gasoline pumps, a factor that may once again turn up the heat on an industry that has been fending off accusations of price-gouging for the better part of two years.
Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., renewed his criticism of the oil industry Friday with a Halloween analogy. "Chevron's latest earnings reports may be a treat for their shareholders, but they're a dirty trick for American consumers," he said.
Chevron, in particular, is especially sensitive about attacks on its huge profits right now because Californians are preparing to vote on initiative, Proposition 87, that would impose a special tax of up to 6 percent tax on oil produced in the state to finance alternative fuel research.
As California's largest oil company, Chevron has been spending heavily to defeat the proposed measure, arguing that it would drive up gas prices. The initiative's backers, including former President Bill Clinton, are touting the tax a way to lessen California's dependence on foreign oil.
Chevron is bracing for a $200 million pretax hit on its annual earnings if the measure passes in the Nov. 7 election, Chief Financial Officer Steve Crowe told analysts during a Friday conference call.
Like other oil companies, Chevron maintains it has little control over worldwide oil prices that are affected by everything from terrorism threats to shifting weather forecasts.
The oil industry also likes to point out that its profit, as a percentage of total revenue, is much lower than many other sectors, including high-tech and finance.
As an example, Chevron made a $9.25 profit on every $100 in revenue during the third quarter. Google Inc. generated a profit of $27.27 on every $100 of its third-quarter revenue, even though it doesn't charge consumers to use its Internet-leading search engine.
Chevron's third-quarter earnings of $5.02 billion, or $2.29 per share, compared with net income of $3.59 billion, or $1.64 per share, at the same time last year.
Chevron boosted its earnings despite a slight decline in its revenue, which totaled $54.2 billion. That was down from $54.5 billion last year.
The performance topped the average estimate of $2.03 per share among analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial, helping to lift Chevron shares 18 cents to close at $67.68 on the New York Stock Exchange.
While more productive refineries contributed to Chevron's upturn, Gheit said the company reaped its biggest gains at the gasoline pumps.
Chevron's profit from refining oil and selling gasoline nearly tripled during the latest quarter. Those operations earned $1.4 billion this year compared to $573 million last year. The turnaround was especially dramatic in the United States, where Chevron's refining profit surged to a nearly six-fold improvement.
The company would have made more money last year if extensive damage caused by Hurricane Katrina and other major storms in the Gulf of Mexico hadn't shut down one of the company's biggest refineries in September and October.
Despite the improving fortunes of Exxon and Chevron, the rest of the industry's profits appear to be tapering off.
Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP PLC and Royal Dutch Shell PLC earned a total of $31.6 billion in this year's quarter, a 4 percent decrease from $32.9 billion a year ago.
Those companies still remain well ahead of 2005's record-setting pace. Through the first nine months of this year, the companies earned a combined $94.5 billion, an 11 percent increase from $85 billion last year.



Record profits for the rich, record amount of deaths for American soldiers -- just two reasons why troops are demoralized.

 

[Toro]

lol

The Far Left has never understood simple supply and demand!

They sure do know their conspiracy theories though!

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Well Sassy, I can't speak for Canadian troops, but all the U.S. troops I know don't give a flying f*** about the anti-war crowd. So if I were you, I wouldn't worry about the affect that these "lovers not fighters" have on morale.

Yeah, I'll vote for that idea too. I haven't known a lot of soldiers in my life, but the few I have known made it pretty clear that they consider anti-war activists to be mostly morons with a completely unrealistic view of the way things are, an opinion I'm usually inclined to agree with. It takes a certain kind of personality to be a good soldier. I don't have it (I have some issues with people telling me what I have to do...) and I'm way too old now for it to ever matter for me anyway, but I'm glad there are others who do. The world still isn't a nice enough place that we don't need soldiers, and every soldier knows that.

 

[catman]

One thing is for sure, we will be done our combat role in Afghanistan by the spring of 2009 when our mandate runs out. If we even make it that far.

 

[gopher]

lol

The Far Left has never understood simple supply and demand!

They sure do know their conspiracy theories though!

now read Kevin Phillips' book - no, he's not a member of the far left and neither am I:

 

[Toro]

Gopher, my man

These record profits you are ascribing to the war are, in fact, due to supply and demand trends that have been building for years. From 1980 to 2000, or thereabouts, demand for energy grew about 2% per year around the world. Supply grew 2.25%, and during the latter part of the 1990s, grew slower because the price of oil for many companies was not sufficient enough to return their cost of capital. However, since 2000, demand has grown 4% per year, due primarily to the emergence of China and, to a lesser extent, India. Supply trends did not change. This may not sound like a lot, but on the margin, it is an enormous change in a market where the difference between oversupplied and tight is 2-3% of global production.

Most commodities have been hitting highs for pretty much the same reason - and it ain't because of war. It is because supply has been tight due to the lack of investment the past 20 years and increased demand from Asia.

On top of that, tens of billions of dollars have flowed into all commodity markets this decade as not only energy, but all commodities such as copper, gold, silver, platinum, zinc, iron ore, sugar and now wheat amongst others hit highs that haven't been seen for years if not decades. (We didn't invade Iraq for wheat, now, did we.) That incremental capital flows into the futures markets, which bids up the price of the underlying commodity. This benefits whomever is making whatever is going up.

When supply goes down, prices rise. When demand goes up, prices rise. When both demand goes down and supply goes up, prices rise even more. And the producers of things that have prices rise by a lot make a lot of money. That's why not only have Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell been making record profits, but also Phelpps Dodge (copper), Newmont Mining (gold), Teck Cominco (zinc, copper, gold), Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton (producers of all sorts of base metals), amongst others.

These trends have nothing to do with the war.

 

[BitWhys]

Yeah, I'll vote for that idea too. I haven't known a lot of soldiers in my life, but the few I have known made it pretty clear that they consider anti-war activists to be mostly morons with a completely unrealistic view of the way things are, an opinion I'm usually inclined to agree with. It takes a certain kind of personality to be a good soldier. I don't have it (I have some issues with people telling me what I have to do...) and I'm way too old now for it to ever matter for me anyway, but I'm glad there are others who do. The world still isn't a nice enough place that we don't need soldiers, and every soldier knows that.

You're right that a good chunk of anti-war movements tend to be too idealistic for their own good but I think in this case that proportion is less than usual as more "realistic" members of society disagree with our mission as it is currently concieved. IMO sometimes you have to fight. That doesn't make it "right", particularly in the sense the pacifists use the term, just necessary. You won't hear as many soldiers saying that part.

I agree with the premise that underlied the commencement of the action in Afghanistan. Even said so at the time. But that was five years ago and I am under no obligation to agree with what it has been allowed to develop into since then.

I still support our troops. They're stuck trying to make a go of it. Its their bosses I have major issues with. I also think that in the current situation the international community can afford a strategic time out.

 

[CDNBear]

You're right that a good chunk of anti-war movements tend to be too idealistic for their own good but I think in this case that proportion is less than usual as more "realistic" members of society disagree with our mission as it is currently concieved. IMO sometimes you have to fight. That doesn't make it "right", particularly in the sense the pacifists use the term, just necessary. You won't hear as many soldiers saying that part.

I agree with the premise that underlied the commencement of the action in Afghanistan. Even said so at the time. But that was five years ago and I am under no obligation to agree with what it has been allowed to develop into since then.

I still support our troops. They're stuck trying to make a go of it. Its their bosses I have major issues with. I also think that in the current situation the international community can afford a strategic time out.

Well put.
Far to often the issue of support comes down to this side vs. that side and all the assinine rethoris that goes with that. But at the end of th eday, the original mission was a sound notion, just poorly planned. That however, does not negate the efforts and ideals that went into the elimination of a key training ground for individuals, hell bent on scaring the world into placating the mindset of those that wish to have America pay for errors, or have the general populus, bow to a one world god.

 

[mabudon]

I'm with you on the mission, I think it was ill concieved and poorly planned, but what do you say about supporting the Troops. If you are against supporting them, why? Caracal, had a great response to that question, I was just curious as to your position.

I am against supporting the mission itself, period, and believe much as The Kid does, I think.

I think the best way to show support for them at this pint is as BitWhys mentioned, do whatever we can to know that I supported the men and women in uniform in the best way I can imagine by trying to put some kind of end to the curent madness...

How bout a quick analogy- you go out to a bar with a friend (a GOOD friend, not some weekend drinking buddy) Your friend gets LOADED over the course of the evening and starts imagining thateveryone in the bar is giving him "the hairy eyeball", subtly trying to challenge him/her, and gets the notion that everyone in the bar is some sort of threat (ever seen anything like this?? I have, but that's beside the point) Now, YOU (for the purposes of this analogy) are not drunk, and can see taht your drunken friend is getting obviously delusional- eventually, the perceived threat getstoo large and your friend decides to do something, so goes up to the biggest guy in the bar and trys to start a fight for "self protection"

How do you "support" your friend?? Attempt to join him/her in kicking everyones ass in the whole bar?? Or do what I would do (and sorta the way I feel about my stance on the Afghanistan disaster) which is to get control of your friend, apologize to the folks they are antagonizing, and attempt to extricate them from the situation before they get themselves turned into mush??


I see the troops as the friend right now, hopelessly engaged in fighting a bar full of folks, and I would rather try to stop the madness than stupidly cheer them on in a fruitless quest- if you concede that the mission was basically doomed to fail at the planning stage, how could you support an attempt to somehow see it through to a conclusion which was made impossible before it even began?? That's my take on the whole "support the troops" mumbo jumbo, it ain't partisan or anything like that, just a straight logical process that got me to think this way, and I am in no wise attacking YOU CDNBear.

I would be interested in hearing some other participants thoughts on the analogy I have presented- what would YOU do to "support" your friend in that situation??

 

[CDNBear]

I am against supporting the mission itself, period, and believe much as The Kid does, I think.

I think the best way to show support for them at this pint is as BitWhys mentioned, do whatever we can to know that I supported the men and women in uniform in the best way I can imagine by trying to put some kind of end to the curent madness...

How bout a quick analogy- you go out to a bar with a friend (a GOOD friend, not some weekend drinking buddy) Your friend gets LOADED over the course of the evening and starts imagining thateveryone in the bar is giving him "the hairy eyeball", subtly trying to challenge him/her, and gets the notion that everyone in the bar is some sort of threat (ever seen anything like this?? I have, but that's beside the point) Now, YOU (for the purposes of this analogy) are not drunk, and can see taht your drunken friend is getting obviously delusional- eventually, the perceived threat getstoo large and your friend decides to do something, so goes up to the biggest guy in the bar and trys to start a fight for "self protection"

How do you "support" your friend?? Attempt to join him/her in kicking everyones ass in the whole bar?? Or do what I would do (and sorta the way I feel about my stance on the Afghanistan disaster) which is to get control of your friend, apologize to the folks they are antagonizing, and attempt to extricate them from the situation before they get themselves turned into mush??


I see the troops as the friend right now, hopelessly engaged in fighting a bar full of folks, and I would rather try to stop the madness than stupidly cheer them on in a fruitless quest- if you concede that the mission was basically doomed to fail at the planning stage, how could you support an attempt to somehow see it through to a conclusion which was made impossible before it even began?? That's my take on the whole "support the troops" mumbo jumbo, it ain't partisan or anything like that, just a straight logical process that got me to think this way, and I am in no wise attacking YOU CDNBear.

I would be interested in hearing some other participants thoughts on the analogy I have presented- what would YOU do to "support" your friend in that situation??

That was an excellent analogy, and I wouldn't take anything in this post as an attack. It was level headed and quite well thought out, thanx.

To address your analogy. I tend to be the "Bigbest Guy" in the bar that gets the lil ones attention. I have never started a physical confrontation (In my eyes only,lol) that wasn't warranted. ie, something that was trivial, or percieved, but rather a complete affront to the very valuesthat have formed our Nations(like flag burning, etc.)

Although I do not see what has transpired in Afghanistan as a a delusion of the US's. I saw the original attack as an action to remove the possiblity of further attacks, by removing a safety net, created by a ruthless Governement. Yes, I can see how some would see that very trait in the US as well.

I can not and will not defend every action the US (our good friend) makes, but I take friendship a lot differently then some. Call it nature vs. nurture or what have you. But i was raised to beleive, that true friends are hard to come by, they may not always think clearly, they may not always do what is right, but if they are willing to take your crap, be your defacto defence mechanism, then when the shyte hits the fan, you stand next to him, not 5 feet behind him. But right at his side whispering truth into their ear as you take and give blows along side them. It is also easier for friends to here you when you are not chastising them in public. That will only lead to a divide, that will make your friend ignore your advice.