[lbo-talk] Economic Blowback from Bombing Iran

Robert Wrubel bobwrubel at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 31 18:54:59 PDT 2007


Travis: that's Nitzan and Bichler's thesis, and since one of them is a colleague, I'm sure you know it. Do you know the book Afflicted Powers, by Retort? Three or four years ago they gave the most nuanced deconstruction of the blood for oil argument I've seen. Bob W --- tfast at yorku.ca wrote:


> I think the oil for blood thesis was flawed. At
> the same time it does not take
> a genius to figure out that either way (victory or
> defeat) the oil men won.
> Restriction of supply is as good as the control of
> supply. Why else does one
> want to control the volume of supply? The fact is
> turmoil in the ME makes west
> texas crude quote valuable. Full stop. The oil
> companies have been in the
> business of supply management for a good time now.
> They must have understood
> that either way they would benefit. No?
>
> Travis
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Robert Wrubel <bobwrubel at yahoo.com>:
>
> > Ravi said: "the entire purpose of the threats
> towards
> > Iran is to have an ongoing "crisis" to serve as a
> > diversion."
> >
> > Andy answered: "True, perhaps.... But I don't
> think
> > I'll ever get over being disabused of the notion
> that
> > invading Iraq was just too goddamn stupid to
> happen."
> >
> > In the world of "diversions" and distractions,
> it's
> > not necessary to believe that the administration
> knows
> > at all times what's real and what's not, or what's
> > stupid and not. It's smart to be skeptical about
> any
> > current bruhaha, but at the same time, you
> shouldnt
> > discount the possibility that, for reasons we may
> not
> > guess, the admin may stumble into something really
> > horrible. When you have as much power as they do,
> and
> > as many ways of exercising it, and as great a
> cloak of
> > secrecy, and as many different pressures and
> interests
> > clamoring for attention, who knows what will
> happen?
> > It's not as as if some judicious ruling body (the
> > "establishment", Goldman Sachs, etc.) is calling
> all
> > the shots.
> >
> > I agree with both Ravi and Andy. It's not in the
> > cards, but dont bet on it.
> >
> > BobW
> >
> > > On 7/31/07, ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I do not believe an invasion of Iran is on the
> > > cards... not only is
> > > > it curtailed by logistic concerns but also the
> > > entire purpose of the
> > > > threats towards Iran is to have an ongoing
> > > "crisis" to serve as a
> > > > diversion.
> > >
> > > True, perhaps.... But I don't think I'll ever
> get
> > > over being
> > > disabused of the notion that invading Iraq was
> just
> > > too goddamn stupid
> > > to happen.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andy
> > > ___________________________________
> > >
> >
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> >
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list