BP and the Pentagon

[G_j]

http://www.badlandsjournal.com/2010-05-24/007534

BP and the Pentagon

Submitted: May 24, 2010
By:
Badlands Journal editorial board

BP's ace in the hole is its contracts with the US Department of Defense, the largest oil consumer in the world. While the military is fighting two wars, one for oil wells (Iraq), the other for pipeline routes (Afghanistan and Pakistan), one of the Pentagon's most favored oil companies commits one of worst oil spill on record and it is still spilling, unabated. Because of BP's military contracts, the government may not impose serious sanctions on the company. It could become "a matter of national security" that BP not be punished. The wars were are fighting for oil are being fueled to a significant extent by BP from wells in the US and Gulf of Mexico.

The civilian government is helpless and is in fact continuing to permit new drilling in the Gulf. It can't stop the spill itself and has little control over BP's efforts. This situation is leading to cynical speculations about the government and BP, for example: pollution of the coastline is just a political obstacle to overcome on the way to full build out of drilling rigs in the Gulf. What is the entire population of the coast worth in comparison to the influence of a few oil companies?

The bribery that is intrinsic to the American political system has hollowed out every institution created to defend citizens against corporations, from the myth of the "freely elected member of Congress" to any form of agency enforcement of law -- particularly regarding the environment. Relations between the Pentagon and the oil companies take place in an entirely "democracy-free zone." These are things that should not concern us and the government would have us believe are not our business. The profits are all theirs, the costs are all ours. We cannot compare the BP oil spill to the amount of depleted uranium dumped by bombs on Iraq and Afghanistan but we don't have to compare to get the point that America's imperial wars are immense profit centers for corporations and the officials that do business with them for whom "national security" is a pretext, not a goal.

[dipsydoodle]

1. Yes.

.

[Scuba]

2. Nationalize them. Use future profits to clean up the mess and compensate victims.

[LawnKorn]

3. I seem to recall some individual waring us about a so-called "Military - Industrial Complex" once

The name just slips my mind. Oh well, who ever it was probably just talking trash.

Or maybe not...

[ensho]

4. oil and military barons love and lust after each other

nt

[nashville_brook]

5. there's not been much posted about the amount BP contributes to the political machine...

and, i'm sure that's b/c of the backlash from party loyalists who would scream bloody murder at the notion that Dems could be bought with...money. but they can. actually, it's what every politician does.

there's also some discussion elsewhere that the money (apprx $71,000, more than what they gave GWB or McCain) BP contributed to the Obama campaign came from "employees" rather than from the PAC system, and therefore doesn't count. i'm sorry, but that's just magical thinking. i worked for a company that "strongly encouraged" political contributions (Salem Communications...ugh...I never participated b/c i never intended the job to be any more than a resume-builder -- get in, get the title/experience, get the hell out), and the way they're used is the same as regular fundraising. The message is this: we've collected X-dollars from our employees, and that makes us an important voice in your decision making. it's not like the absence of a PAC makes these contributions null and void. it's a manipulation.

and now that corps are free to "be people' in the eyes of the political system, this whole "employee tithing" system is moot.

[William Z. Foster]

6. good point

"...a company that "strongly encouraged" political contributions..."

That is very common - pressure from management to kick in money, which is then bundled or whatever they call it.

The idea that donations "came from 'employees' rather than from the PAC system" is as you say "just magical thinking." No politician asks you who your employer is when taking a genuine individual contribution from you.

[G_j]

7. ++