Dick Cheney said it best!

[Ironside]

"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?" Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney - 1991

Was Dick Cheney right?

The Source - The Washington Post

[err]

"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?" Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney - 1991

Was Dick Cheney right?

The Source - The Washington Post

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that the answer is: Who cares, as long as we get control of the oil.

It's not like they give a hoot about the Iraqi people... as long as the USA has control of whatever government that is installed (and hence the oil supply), why should they care.

They don't care about democracy in Saudi Arabia.... They have a deal with the Saudi royal family.... guaranteeing access to Saudi oil, so who cares about the Saudi people (except perhaps a few radicals like Osama Bin Laden)

They helped topple a democratically elected government in Iran in the 1950s, and installed the Shah of Iran .... Who cares about the "sand niggers".... as long as the USA has access to the oil...

However, the Saudis turned on the USA in the early seventies over Isreal... and the USA can't have that happening again... what they need is CONTROL of oil, not just ACCESS....

[August1991]

It's not like they give a hoot about the Iraqi people... as long as the USA has control of whatever government that is installed (and hence the oil supply), why should they care.

American consumers had access to Iraqi oil under Saddam Hussein. American consumers will pay the world price for oil, regardless of the regime in place. In fact, to my knowledge, Americans do not import oil from Iraq since they get it elsewhere. Most Midlle Eastern oil goes to Asia and Europe. But I suppose that the world oil market, being what it is, makes easy identification of specific countries difficult.

Why invade a country for a resource that you can buy on the open market? It makes as much sense as going into Wal-Mart with a gun and then paying cash for the TV as you leave.

[Black Dog]

American consumers had access to Iraqi oil under Saddam Hussein. American consumers will pay the world price for oil, regardless of the regime in place. In fact, to my knowledge, Americans do not import oil from Iraq since they get it elsewhere. Most Midlle Eastern oil goes to Asia and Europe. But I suppose that the world oil market, being what it is, makes easy identification of specific countries difficult.

Why invade a country for a resource that you can buy on the open market? It makes as much sense as going into Wal-Mart with a gun and then paying cash for the TV as you leave.

Jesus, August, we've been through this a billion times. Under Saddam, Iraq's oil was nationalized. Foreign oil companies negotiated with the regime for access. these firms included Royal Dutch/Shell of the Netherlands, Russia's Lukoil and France's Total Elf Aquitaine. Now, given the cozy relationship between Bush and company and the U.S. oil industry and given the U.S. oil industry's relatively unfavourable position with regards to accessing the sweet black gold, the conclusion is that the invasion was about securing access to the oil for American firms. There's also the greater strategic implicatons of placing a military force on top of the world's second largest oil reserves (which happen to be in close proximity to a growing-and increasingly oil-hungry-superpower in China). So to say that they invaded so that AMericans could get cheap oil is simplistic and to disregard the pivotal role oil played in the decision to invade is just naive.

[err]

Why invade a country for a resource that you can buy on the open market?  It makes as much sense as going into Wal-Mart with a gun and then paying cash for the TV as you leave.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Based on you responses, you probably weren't around in 1973-1974, when the Arab world, (including Saudi Arabia) cut off oil supplies to the USA) This was in response to the USA's strong support for Isreal. The net result was an "energy crisis", where the shortage of oil raised North American fuel prices considerably.

The USA considered any future occurrences like this to be a threat to "national security". They could never let this happen again.

The USA wanted CONTROL of oil, not just ACCESS, so they could ensure that there would not be a repeat of the 1970's "energy crisis". That is why they attacked Iraq.

[err]

.... So to say that they invaded so that AMericans could get cheap oil is simplistic and to disregard the pivotal role oil played in the decision to invade is just naive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent reply Black Dog.

[Montgomery Burns]

No Blood for Oooiiilll!!!

[BHS]

Hmm. And now we're just rolling in that cheap, sweet crude. Thanks BD.

[Black Dog]

Hmm. And now we're just rolling in that cheap, sweet crude. Thanks BD.

Hmm, well, I never said their plan worked, did I? No, like seemingly everything else they touch, the neocons scheme for setting up a U.S. oil colony in the heartof the Middel East seems to have turned to sh*t. The only thing greater than this administration's greed and arrogance is its incompetence.

[Shady]

Hmm, well, I never said their plan worked, did I?

It's more classic revisionist history. They claim that the primary reason for going to Iraq was for cheap oil. When their ridiculous premise is proven wrong, they simply change it. I've now heard the same people explain that the didn't mean cheap oil for the pumps, they meant cheap oil for the big evil oil companies. Now, it seems it's changed again. Now, it's just that thier plan hasn't worked. Come'on libs, you can do better then that! LOL

[Black Dog]

It's more classic revisionist history. They claim that the primary reason for going to Iraq was for cheap oil. When their ridiculous premise is proven wrong, they simply change it. I've now heard the same people explain that the didn't mean cheap oil for the pumps, they meant cheap oil for the big evil oil companies. Now, it seems it's changed again. Now, it's just that thier plan hasn't worked. Come'on libs, you can do better then that! LOL

Who's "they"? Personally, I have never uttered the words "cheap oil", either for consumers or for oil companies. Cheap oil would mean low prices, low priceswould in turn mean lower profits for oil companies, profits which are the lifeblood of the U.S. (specifically: Republican) political machine. So I have no reason to believe cheap oil was ever a motivating factor. It's always been about controlling the oil, not the price, which is set on the world market.

Here's a 2003 article from 2004.

BUSH'S DEEP REASONS FOR WAR ON IRAQ: OIL, PETRODOLLARS, AND THE OPEC EURO QUESTION

Note that the true issue here is not just access to Iraq oil, but control over it. As Michael Parenti reminds us, in 1998, when the UN allowed Iraq to increase its exports into an already over-supplied oil market, this was perceived as a threat to US interests:

`The San Francisco Chronicle (22 February 1998) headlined its story "IRAQ'S OIL POSES THREAT TO THE WEST." In fact, Iraqi crude poses no threat to "the West" only to Western oil investors. If Iraq were able to reenter the international oil market, the Chronicle reported, "it would devalue British North Sea oil, undermine American oil production and---much more important---it would destroy the huge profits which the United States [read, US oil companies] stands to gain from its massive investment in Caucasian oil production, especially in Azerbaijan."'

[theloniusfleabag]

I have said in the past, the US would have been greatly damaged by non-intervention in Iraq. Saddam was making the Euro the currency of choice for the second-largest oil reserves (soon to be first) in the world. The US dollar cannot stand on it's own, it is grossly over-valued and could possibly collapse if it gets replaced in enough institutions.

Secondly, given China's voracious, and growing, appetite for energy, the US could not sit back and let China even think about controlling the Iraqi oil. China is more than willing to enter Sudan, and anywhere else that has oil with total disregard for human-rights, environmental concerns, etc as long as they can increase supply to China. I would expect that they would have (or should have) been making some major offers to Saddam before the invasion.

[err]

They claim that the primary reason for going to Iraq was for cheap oil.  When their ridiculous premise is proven wrong, they simply change it.  I've now heard the same people explain that the didn't mean cheap oil for the pumps, they meant cheap oil for the big evil oil companies.  Now, it seems it's changed again.  Now, it's just that thier plan hasn't worked.  Come'on libs, you can do better then that! LOL

They ??? Who's "they".

The USA doesn't just want ACCESS to oil. They want CONTROL of oil reserves. They don't want a repeat of the 1973-1974 "energy crisis", when their pals, the Saudi royal family bowed to public pressure (Saudi public pressure) to join the embargo against the USA. This was as a response to the USA's support for Isreal.

They don't ever want this to happen again. How could they conduct a massive war without putting oil in their war machines. It would be a "national security" risk...

Plus, they (the Bush administration) want the Iraqi profits going to American oil companies. Oil companies that had on their boards of directors, names like:

George Bush

Dick Cheney

Condoleeza Rice

Donald Rumsfeld.

Not that I'm suggesting these individuals have a "personal interest" in forcibly obtaining extra profits for the companies they once served... companies that will more than likely "reward them" with another position on their boards of directors once they are voted out... and maybe a few additional perks that they shouldn't talk about....

[August1991]

Why invade a country for a resource that you can buy on the open market?  It makes as much sense as going into Wal-Mart with a gun and then paying cash for the TV as you leave.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Based on you responses, you probably weren't around in 1973-1974, when the Arab world, (including Saudi Arabia) cut off oil supplies to the USA) This was in response to the USA's strong support for Isreal. The net result was an "energy crisis", where the shortage of oil raised North American fuel prices considerably.

The USA considered any future occurrences like this to be a threat to "national security". They could never let this happen again.

The USA wanted CONTROL of oil, not just ACCESS, so they could ensure that there would not be a repeat of the 1970's "energy crisis". That is why they attacked Iraq.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only a threat? In fact, we've been living with not merely a threat but the real thing since 1973.

In 1973, OPEC for the first time used its cartel powers to limit supplies and drive up the world price. It's been doing that ever since - with varied success. The October 1973 embargo against Holland and the US was minor compared to OPEC exercising its cartel powers - which we still live with 30 years later. (In truth, such an embargo is meaningless after a month or so because US consumers can always go into the world market and buy what they need.)

Under Saddam, Iraq's oil was nationalized. Foreign oil companies negotiated with the regime for access. these firms included Royal Dutch/Shell of the Netherlands, Russia's Lukoil and France's Total Elf Aquitaine.

IOW, Saddam collected royalties on oil produced.

Now, given the cozy relationship between Bush and company and the U.S. oil industry and given the U.S. oil industry's relatively unfavourable position with regards to accessing the sweet black gold, the conclusion is that the invasion was about securing access to the oil for American firms.

So, now the American companies will have to bid for the access - and a new Iraqi regime will collect the royalties.

My analogy to Wal-Mart stands. You are accusing someone of "invading" the household goods aisle of a Wal-Mart to obtain "access" to laundry soap - which they'll have to pay for on the way out.

There's also the greater strategic implicatons of placing a military force on top of the world's second largest oil reserves (which happen to be in close proximity to a growing-and increasingly oil-hungry-superpower in China).

You apparently approach this issue with 19th century thinking, or perhaps that of a German circa 1938. "We'll take possession of Rumania's oil fields... "

Americans have long understood that it is much, much more profitable in the long run to buy something from someone at a freely negotiated price than it ever is to steal it, or to imperialize it.

In any case, even African governments collect royalties.

People like Linda McCuaig are capable of sophisticated political analyses but they simply don't understand economics. Reading her, I feel like I am reading the arcane intricacies of a zodiac chart interpretation. The author is obviously intelligent but their abilities are entirely misapplied - some basic facts are missing. (IMV, the Left in general suffers from this blinkered view of the world and I have a suspicion that Leftists tend to be good with words but bad at math. I dunno.)

Saddam was making the Euro the currency of choice for the second-largest oil reserves (soon to be first) in the world. The US dollar cannot stand on it's own, it is grossly over-valued and could possibly collapse if it gets replaced in enough institutions.

What a red herring that is. People around the world like to hold US securities because they offer a good return. European securities don't offer the same.

Jesus, August, we've been through this a billion times.

I'm patient when dealing with nonsense.

[err]

Only a threat?  In fact, we've been living with not merely a threat but the real thing since 1973.

In 1973, OPEC for the first time used its cartel powers to limit supplies and drive up the world price.  It's been doing that ever since - with varied success.  The October 1973 embargo against Holland and the US was minor compared to OPEC exercising its cartel powers - which we still live with 30 years later.  (In truth, such an embargo is meaningless after a month or so because US consumers can always go into the world market and buy what they need.)

So which is it August... "the real thing" or "such an embargo is meaningless after a month or so because US consumers can always go into the world market and buy what they need"... To quote you "Let's be clear"

A funny thing about OPEC... Not to be racist, but the rag-tag bunch of third-world leaders riding camels couldn't have pulled off the embargo as well as the embargo was done... and they certainly cant keep the price up by restricting the production... They can't because half of them invariably start exceeding their quotas to make a few extra bucks.... I think that BIG OIL (the oil companies) have had to assist OPEC in keeping prices high, while pretending to the public... "we can't do anything... It's those Arabs".... So BIG OIL can reap huge profits and not take any of the public's wrath... Its a very good scam...

Under Saddam, Iraq's oil was nationalized. Foreign oil companies negotiated with the regime for access. these firms included Royal Dutch/Shell of the Netherlands, Russia's Lukoil and France's Total Elf Aquitaine.

IOW, Saddam collected royalties on oil produced.

Maybe we have to explain this in simpler language. The USA desperately did not want the embargo against Iraq lifted because Saddam had arrangements with Holland, France, and Russia to exploit Iraq's oil. There was no provision for the USA or and US-Based, or UK-based firms to make any profits from Iraq's oil. The USA (and UK) would be allowed to buy oil from the Dutch, French, or Russian companies (if they would sell it to the USA), but there would be no profits for Dick Cheyney's old company...

The only way to stop these deals from going through was to ATTACK IRAQ...

Now, given the cozy relationship between Bush and company and the U.S. oil industry and given the U.S. oil industry's relatively unfavourable position with regards to accessing the sweet black gold, the conclusion is that the invasion was about securing access to the oil for American firms.

So, now the American companies will have to bid for the access - and a new Iraqi regime will collect the royalties.

That's right August... Access, yes...... but NO CONTROL, and NO PROFITS.

My analogy to Wal-Mart stands.  You are accusing someone of "invading" the household goods aisle of a Wal-Mart to obtain "access" to laundry soap - which they'll have to pay for on the way out.

Duh.... (that wasn't like one of your famous acronymns... it was a grunt of despair)

Americans have long understood that it is much, much more profitable in the long run to buy something from someone at a freely negotiated price than it ever is to steal it, or to imperialize it.

Really... and you truly believe that...

They're not just stealing it for the benefit of the general American public.... How about Haliburton, Chevron, Mobil... all companies that Dick Cheney's task force consulted about their plans to attack Iraq. All companies that the members of the current Bush administration sat on their boards of directors.....

People like Linda McCuaig are capable of sophisticated political analyses but they simply don't understand economics.  Reading her, I feel like I am reading the arcane intricacies of a zodiac chart interpretation.

And have you read Linda McQuaig's "It's the Crude, Dude" I don't think that you'd be making the naive arguments that you are if you had. (PS. The book isn't about economics)... PPS. What books of hers have you read that allow you to comment so authoratitively on them ???

I dunno.)

I'll agree with you on this point at least...

[err]

Saddam was making the Euro the currency of choice for the second-largest oil reserves (soon to be first) in the world. The US dollar cannot stand on it's own, it is grossly over-valued and could possibly collapse if it gets replaced in enough institutions.

What a red herring that is.

August: I think you misused the phrase. A "red herring" is a stinky fish, used to throw the scent off of what hunting dogs were following their noses to find" I don't see Black Dog's point as a distraction at all.

You, who pretends to know something about economics should see the merit in what BD says. It will give the Euro more strength against the greenback....

[mirror]

FWIW I'm enjoying this important debate and trying to learn a bit.

Dick Cheney is certainly a man to watch, and to keep track of, as my hunch is that he will be the Republican presidential candidate in 2008. He will only be 67 years old in 2008, and I believe Ronald Reagan was 69 when he entered the White House.

Sorry for the interruption.

[Black Dog]

So, now the American companies will have to bid for the access - and a new Iraqi regime will collect the royalties.

My analogy to Wal-Mart stands. You are accusing someone of "invading" the household goods aisle of a Wal-Mart to obtain "access" to laundry soap - which they'll have to pay for on the way out.

And American companies get the contracts, contracts which they were shut out of prior to the invasion.

Your analogy is silly.

You apparently approach this issue with 19th century thinking, or perhaps that of a German circa 1938. "We'll take possession of Rumania's oil fields... "

Again: no. It's pretty basic: give U.S. oil companies a crack at the oil (only a small portion of profits go into royalties) and put the muscle in place to dissuade any rivals. This isn't a free market textbook we're talking about: more like gang warfare on a global scale.

Americans have long understood that it is much, much more profitable in the long run to buy something from someone at a freely negotiated price than it ever is to steal it, or to imperialize it.

Wow, your talent for misrepresntaton is matched only by your talent for stating the blindingly obvious.

People like Linda McCuaig are capable of sophisticated political analyses but they simply don't understand economics. Reading her, I feel like I am reading the arcane intricacies of a zodiac chart interpretation. The author is obviously intelligent but their abilities are entirely misapplied - some basic facts are missing. (IMV, the Left in general suffers from this blinkered view of the world and I have a suspicion that Leftists tend to be good with words but bad at math. I dunno.)

I'm often astiounded by the utter credulity you bring to discussion of economics and politics. Markets work perfectly in Augustland, noone has any ulterior motives.

I wonder if you've given half a thought to the cozy world of high finance and politics, of how decisions are made. I wonder how the significance of parking an army on top of the world's second largest strategic reserves couild sail by you.

I'm patient when dealing with nonsense.

And dogged at peddling it.

[August1991]

Saddam was making the Euro the currency of choice for the second-largest oil reserves (soon to be first) in the world. The US dollar cannot stand on it's own, it is grossly over-valued and could possibly collapse if it gets replaced in enough institutions.

What a red herring that is.

August: I think you misused the phrase. A "red herring" is a stinky fish, used to throw the scent off of what hunting dogs were following their noses to find" I don't see Black Dog's point as a distraction at all.

You, who pretends to know something about economics should see the merit in what BD says. It will give the Euro more strength against the greenback....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whether in Bahrein, Tokyo, Moscow or Freeport, a private bank's decision about the mix of euros or dollars to hold as a reserve currency depends on many factors. One major factor is the preferences of the private bank's customers. US denominated financial assets credibly promise generally good returns for the simple reason that the US real economy delivers the goods. Americans work.

It's pretty basic: give U.S. oil companies a crack at the oil (only a small portion of profits go into royalties) and put the muscle in place to dissuade any rivals. This isn't a free market textbook we're talking about: more like gang warfare on a global scale.

WTF? Only a small portion of profits go into royalties? BD, do you have any idea how much it costs to produce oil in Iraq? Do you know what the world price of crude is? Do the math - and I'll help you.

I'll start with the BBC, because you will likely believe it, and the quote is mathematically simple:

The cost of producing crude oil varies enormously from place to place. In some parts of the Middle East, where oilfields are large and easily accessible, the cost of extracting oil from the ground can be less than 10 cents a barrel.

BBC

The royalty is the difference between the world market price (alot more than 10 cents) and the cost of production. Once again, do the math.

IOW, whoever forms the Iraqi government is going to be very, very wealthy. To use a Leftist analogy, the oil companies hired to explore, develop and produce the oil will be like the hired hands on a plantation. I prefer the analogy of a Wal-Mart aisle. It's a good deal, but you have to compete for a space in the check-out line.

I'm often astiounded by the utter credulity you bring to discussion of economics and politics. Markets work perfectly in Augustland, noone has any ulterior motives.

I wonder if you've given half a thought to the cozy world of high finance and politics, of how decisions are made. I wonder how the significance of parking an army on top of the world's second largest strategic reserves couild sail by you.

If we were discussing Bombardier or even Boeing and Airbus, I might go along with you, BD. Or at least, you'd have my attention.

But the oil market involves billions of daily customers, millions of retailers around the world, hundreds if not thousands of refiners, hundreds if not thousands of shippers, tens of thousands of firms involved in exploration and development, over 30 corporations who do all this internally, and over 30 different governments who have sovereignty over the oil fields. I call that a competitive market.

I think the Left focusses on oil because of lotteries, Oklahama and Jed Clampett. True, if you discover oil or gold underneath your land, you win the jackpot. Every Leftist dreams of becoming the favoured daughter or favoured son. Every Leftist dreams of an instant solution to injustice.

----

There are several issues involved in this discussion. I'll pick three.

First, did the US invade Iraq to get the oil? Well, dude, it didn't. It would make more sense for the US to invade Europe and take over Airbus. In such a competitive market as oil, the best one can hope for is a place like Alberta - the Wal-Mart of the world's oil market.

Second, why does the North American Left so misunderstand economics? Why does this Left (McCuaig, Klein, Chomsky, Moore etc) make a mess of their arguments? There is a good economic case to be made against the Right but this crew is not making it. (Naomi Klein wrote a book about international trade and then, with the money earned by the book's royalties, she paid for her studies at the LSE, explaining that she needed to learn more about economics.)

Third, how does the North American Left now survive? In English Canada, the Left succeeds because of English Canadian anti-American nationalism and in Quebec, it succeeds because of the desire for autonomy. In the US and Canada (English or French), the Left also now appeals to social liberals - often younger people. It is pathetic that 21st century Economic Leftists must seek votes from people who think the State should leave individuals free to choose.

[err]

You, who pretends to know something about economics should see the merit in what BD says.  It will give the Euro more strength against the greenback....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whether in Bahrein, Tokyo, Moscow or Freeport, a private bank's decision about the mix of euros or dollars to hold as a reserve currency depends on many factors. One major factor is the preferences of the private bank's customers. blah, blah, blah....

August, you may with to read an interesting article about the potential effects of a switch to the Euro. Instead of just pretending you know something about economics, why don't you look at this link and quote, and maybe you'll just learn something. Macroeconomic Analysis of switch to Euro

the effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You'd have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there'd surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario.

"The United States economy is intimately tied to the dollar's role as reserve currency. This doesn't mean that the U.S. couldn't function otherwise, but that the transition would have to be gradual to avoid such dislocations (and the ultimate result of this would probably be the U.S. and the E.U. switching roles in the global economy)."

It's pretty basic: give U.S. oil companies a crack at the oil (only a small portion of profits go into royalties) and put the muscle in place to dissuade any rivals. This isn't a free market textbook we're talking about: more like gang warfare on a global scale.

WTF? Only a small portion of profits go into royalties? BD, do you have any idea how much it costs to produce oil in Iraq? Do you know what the world price of crude is? Do the math - and I'll help you.

I wise old owl sat on an oak... the more he heard, the less he spoke... the less he spoke, the more he heard, now August, don't you wish you were as wise as that old bird... IOW (to use one of your favourite acronyms) If you keep blabbing nonsense and don't listen, you'll never learn anything, and remain ignorant.

Do the math - tens of billions of dollars profit each year.... why would they bother going for that.????

I prefer the analogy of a Wal-Mart aisle.  It's a good deal, but you have to compete for a space in the check-out line.

I'm often astiounded by the utter credulity you bring to discussion of economics and politics. Markets work perfectly in Augustland, noone has any ulterior motives.

Well said Black Dog.

There are several issues involved in this discussion.  I'll pick three.

First, did the US invade Iraq to get the oil?  Well, dude, it didn't.  It would make more sense for the US to invade Europe and take over Airbus.  In such a competitive market as oil, the best one can hope for is a place like Alberta - the Wal-Mart of the world's oil market.

Anybody home ??? I didn't think so. Billions of dollars per year in profits... why would anyone want all that work....

Second, why does the North American Left so misunderstand economics?  Why does this Left (McCuaig, Klein, Chomsky, Moore etc) make a mess of their arguments?

Maybe if you read some of these books you'd have some credibility. It would appear to me that you haven't read any of them, and probably wouldn't understand them.

Third, how does the North American Left now survive?  In English Canada, the Left succeeds because of English Canadian anti-American nationalism and in Quebec, it succeeds because of the desire for autonomy.  In the US and Canada (English or French), the Left also now appeals to social liberals - often younger people.  It is pathetic that 21st century Economic Leftists must seek votes from people who think the State should leave individuals free to choose.

And this applies to Oil in Iraq ??? ... or has any bearing on reality outside Augustland ???