[DEBATE] : Oil Majors Say U.S. Restrictions Delay Iran Projects
critical.montages at gmail.com
Fri May 30 19:20:30 BST 2008
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>> Take a look at campaign contributions to the Republican Party divided by
>> The top contributor is the finance/insurance/real estate sector, and
>> energy/natural resources is not among the top five.
> Take a look at the 2000 cycle, and you'll get a lot more oil & gas/energy.
> The Reps are having a hard time raising money from anyone in this cycle.
If the Bush White House had been good for imperialism, the ruling
class would be backing McCain against Obama, but the ruling class --
including oil men -- appear to think that Bush & Co. failed. (I had
thought that they had already seen the problem in 2004, but I was
> Also, compare oil & gas contribs to Reps vs. Dems. Much more lopsided than
It is true that oilmen are more into Republicans than Democrats.
This, I think, has more to do with their respective stances toward
taxes and environmental regulations than any partisan differences in
US foreign policy which are more nuances than anything else.
It seems to me that FIRE dominates the direction of US policy when it
comes to domestic policy. I don't know what influence it has over US
>> Moreover, is there any evidence that Big Oil lobbied for the Iraq War
>> or has been lobbying for Iran and other sanctions?
> No there's not. An oil industry economist said on my radio show early in the
> Iraq adventure that the oil industry was not in favor of the invasion.
The question is then why the party more backed by oil men than the
other party went ahead and invaded Iraq anyway.
More information about the Debate-list