Seems to me a lot of Americans are only against the war because its not going well

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

are YOU pumping the oil?? ...

No.

what makes my opinion on this any different than yours?? ...

You're making demands on what should be done with something that isn't yours. I'm not.

making a comment like that adds nothing to the discussion whatsoever ...

It certainly does. You're claiming ownership of something for someone by suggesting you or they have a right to dictate what happens.

why should any company have ownership of a resource such as oil? ... its like owning water ... they should be maintaned by the country ...

Ownerships of this resource would be held by the country. A PSA gives an oil company the right to sell or buy the product, not the right to own it outright.

iraq only became a developed nation when it decided to nationalize its oil ... up until then - a very small percentage benefited while the people got very little ... this will be the case again - due to this law ...

Hehe....a large percentage in Iraq have never benefitted from that oil. Stop pretending otherwise.

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

No.



You're making demands on what should be done with something that isn't yours. I'm not.



It certainly does. You're claiming ownership of something for someone by suggesting you or they have a right to dictate what happens.



Ownerships of this resource would be held by the country. A PSA gives an oil company the right to sell or buy the product, not the right to own it outright.



Hehe....a large percentage in Iraq have never benefitted from that oil. Stop pretending otherwise.

How am I making demands? It's an opinion on the faults of giving rights to a resource to foreign companies.

If Iraqis don't own the oil - who does? Nowhere do I claim I own it. Interpreting that is absurd.

My comment on ownership was in regards to you indicating that the companies do not own the oil.

Let's see, modern hospitals, clean drinking water, better schools, solid infrastructure ... all done when the profits of oil went to the people ... it all went to shits when they decided to goto war with iran ... nevertheless - only accomplished through nationalization ...

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

How am I making demands? It's an opinion on the faults of giving rights to a resource to foreign companies.

Really? Do you not understand what you're doing when you declare the purpose of oil:

"invest in the social infrastructure or the betterment of iraqis"

How would you feel if I, for example, took issue with any amount of money you spent? If I demanded that you give 100% of your earnings to the "social infrastructure", wouldn't you question my right to do so?

If Iraqis don't own the oil - who does? Nowhere do I claim I own it. Interpreting that is absurd.

Iraqis do own the oil under the proposed PSA agreement. They use that ownership to lease operating rights to oil producing entities. Effectively, those entities do all the work while Iraqis receive a percentage of the profits.

Let's see, modern hospitals, clean drinking water, better schools, solid infrastructure ... all done when the profits of oil went to the people ... it all went to shits when they decided to goto war with iran ... nevertheless - only accomplished through nationalization ...

Hehe...are you serious? Following the British occupation of Iraq, their oil was dealt with via terms very similar to the PSAs being proposed today. A full-out revolution quickly resulted. A quasi-socialistic system was introduced and that paved the way for further revolt and the rule of the Baath party.

You seem to be suggesting here that a "healthy" Iraq was a pre-war Iraq, or a Qassem-ic Iraq. Neither is the case. A healthy Iraq is one wherein a respect for property and life exist. I'm not sure when the last time that was the case.

The "modern hospitals" and such you speak of have not been the norm in Iraq for generations. Furthermore, none of them were accomplished through nationalization since the nationalized oil industry in Iraq was more of a tool of war and corruption than social benefit.

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

Really? Do you not understand what you're doing when you declare the purpose of oil:

"invest in the social infrastructure or the betterment of iraqis"

How would you feel if I, for example, took issue with any amount of money you spent? If I demanded that you give 100% of your earnings to the "social infrastructure", wouldn't you question my right to do so?



Iraqis do own the oil under the proposed PSA agreement. They use that ownership to lease operating rights to oil producing entities. Effectively, those entities do all the work while Iraqis receive a percentage of the profits.



Hehe...are you serious? Following the British occupation of Iraq, their oil was dealt with via terms very similar to the PSAs being proposed today. A full-out revolution quickly resulted. A quasi-socialistic system was introduced and that paved the way for further revolt and the rule of the Baath party.

You seem to be suggesting here that a "healthy" Iraq was a pre-war Iraq, or a Qassem-ic Iraq. Neither is the case. A healthy Iraq is one wherein a respect for property and life exist. I'm not sure when the last time that was the case.

The "modern hospitals" and such you speak of have not been the norm in Iraq for generations. Furthermore, none of them were accomplished through nationalization since the nationalized oil industry in Iraq was more of a tool of war and corruption than social benefit.

ha! ... why do i always forget who i'm talking to?? ... apparently, an opinion on what is "best" for iraqis is now considered a demand ... i'm not gonna argue semantics ... you know very well - i'm not demanding anything - again, serves no function in a discussion ...

and again - i know who owns the oil ... my comment on ownership was in response to you telling me the corporations don't own the oil ...

i am saying a pre-war iraq was better and will be better than the post-war iraq the US is manufacturing ... that is for sure ... not to say life in iraq was perfect ... but where is life perfect? ...

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

ha! ... why do i always forget who i'm talking to?? ... apparently, an opinion on what is "best" for iraqis is now considered a demand ... i'm not gonna argue semantics ... you know very well - i'm not demanding anything - again, serves no function in a discussion ...

and again - i know who owns the oil ... my comment on ownership was in response to you telling me the corporations don't own the oil ...

i am saying a pre-war iraq was better and will be better than the post-war iraq the US is manufacturing ... that is for sure ... not to say life in iraq was perfect ... but where is life perfect? ...

Life is perfect nowhere. However, to suggest that pre-war Iraq was even acceptable is absolutely ridiculous (that does not mean that post-war Iraq is acceptable either).

Perhaps you don't understand the points about ownership. You are suggesting that something the Iraqi population adds no value to carries with it an obligation to those people. That is to suggest that no one owns anything. This is a very key point to understanding Iraqi history or the history of any narrowly resource-rich nation.

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

Life is perfect nowhere. However, to suggest that pre-war Iraq was even acceptable is absolutely ridiculous (that does not mean that post-war Iraq is acceptable either).

Perhaps you don't understand the points about ownership. You are suggesting that something the Iraqi population adds no value to carries with it an obligation to those people. That is to suggest that no one owns anything. This is a very key point to understanding Iraqi history or the history of any narrowly resource-rich nation.

standard of living was higher pre-war ... it is not that i am suggesting we go back to a pre-war situation - simply, that if the profits from oil were used to fund infrastructure improvements rather than going to foreign companies - that would be in the best interests of iraqis ... which as far as i know is what the gov't is for ...

what is the purpose of the gov't then? ... what is the purpose of pumping oil? ... they are to serve the public interest ...

NCfan

polaris wrote:

who will profit from that oil in iraq?

Hmmm, if we look to other Middle Eastern countries as an example... like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Kuwait - I would say the Iraqi's will make a shit load of money from their oil. There is no reason to think otherwise.

polaris

NCfan wrote:

Hmmm, if we look to other Middle Eastern countries as an example... like Saudi Arabia, Iran or Kuwait - I would say the Iraqi's will make a shit load of money from their oil. There is no reason to think otherwise.

Not sure about Kuwait - but Saudi Arabia and Iran have nationalized their oil ... the rights are not owned by foreign companies ...

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

standard of living was higher pre-war ...

Well, yes. But that had nothing to do with oil. It had everything to do with a regime who's only tangible benefit was found in controlling the driftless anarchy that now exists in Iraq.

it is not that i am suggesting we go back to a pre-war situation - simply, that if the profits from oil were used to fund infrastructure improvements rather than going to foreign companies - that would be in the best interests of iraqis ... which as far as i know is what the gov't is for ...

Here's the problem with that logic -- you're saying that the effort that goes into producing that oil in the first place is worthless. You're saying, economically, that zero effort should result in non-zero benefit. That means someone has to sacrifice themselves to that scheme. So you'll create yet another cycle in Iraqi history wherein strongmen simply struggle to achieve the maximum benefit your system will allow them, which is effectively the maxmimum amount they can steal at the point of a gun.

what is the purpose of the gov't then?

To protect the rights of all their citizens.

what is the purpose of pumping oil?

To sell to people who need to use oil.

they are to serve the public interest ...

Hehe...no. There's no such thing as "the public interest", at least not in the context you're using it. If you want to see the "public interest" in Iraq, simply turn on your TV -- it's all over the news right now.

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

Well, yes. But that had nothing to do with oil. It had everything to do with a regime who's only tangible benefit was found in controlling the driftless anarchy that now exists in Iraq.



Here's the problem with that logic -- you're saying that the effort that goes into producing that oil in the first place is worthless. You're saying, economically, that zero effort should result in non-zero benefit. That means someone has to sacrifice themselves to that scheme. So you'll create yet another cycle in Iraqi history wherein strongmen simply struggle to achieve the maximum benefit your system will allow them, which is effectively the maxmimum amount they can steal at the point of a gun.



To protect the rights of all their citizens.



To sell to people who need to use oil.



Hehe...no. There's no such thing as "the public interest", at least not in the context you're using it. If you want to see the "public interest" in Iraq, simply turn on your TV -- it's all over the news right now.

re-allocating revenues from oil most definitely had a role in the standard of living ...

that is not what i'm saying ... that is what you are interpreting ... to get into what i'm saying - we'd have to get into the whole "value" of work thing ... which has been gotten into plenty of times ...

i disagree with what your role of gov't should be, especially as it pertains to this situation ... obviously, you can't generalize into one sentence but i do believe that infrastructure related items do fall within a gov't role in most countries ...

NCfan

polaris wrote:

Not sure about Kuwait - but Saudi Arabia and Iran have nationalized their oil ... the rights are not owned by foreign companies ...

Ah, I didn't realize that.

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

re-allocating revenues from oil most definitely had a role in the standard of living ...

Are you sure about that? All you've done is relocated the money from one set of corrupt politicians to the next. The average Iraqi, pre-war, saw little or no benefit from the oil within his nation's borders.

that is not what i'm saying ... that is what you are interpreting ... to get into what i'm saying - we'd have to get into the whole "value" of work thing ... which has been gotten into plenty of times ...

If it's an interpretation, feel free to answer this very simple question with a "no":

Would an Iraqi who had absolutely nothing to do with producing oil for sale on the world market have an enforceable right to benefit from that sale?

i disagree with what your role of gov't should be, especially as it pertains to this situation ... obviously, you can't generalize into one sentence but i do believe that infrastructure related items do fall within a gov't role in most countries ...

Obviously, I can generalize in one sentence what the role of government should be. As a matter of fact, the only person who couldn't do that is the person whose idea of government creates fundamental contradictions.

Just because something falls within a typical government's role, doesn't make it a good purpose of government. Genocide is a common part of some governments' roles. Does that make it a rightful purpose? Of course not.

There is absolutely no requirement for "infrastructure" to be part of a government's role. In most cases, public infrastructure represents a severe violation of a government's role in defending the fundamental rights of its citizens.

Regardless, the proposed agreements you seem to be rejecting fall directly into your camp. PSAs do not relinquish ownership of oil to oil companies. Furthermore, PSAs do not prevent governments from profitting at significant levels from that oil. Finally, PSAs do not prevent governments from their typical approach to resource management: the art of rampant looting.

Songburst

jlew24asu wrote:

Iraq does have control of their oil. american companies are helping pump the stuff out of the ground but Iraq oil itself is controlled by OPEC. dont tell me its not, I do this for a living. I work for a trading firm that trades oil. sorry to disappoint you

So you're telling me that Iraq will be free to sell their oil to China should they so choose? The oil in the ground in Iraq is America's reserve for the next 100+ years and there is no way in hell the "Iraqi's" that control the oil will be allowed to sell more than a pittance to China. I guess you would know best though since your firm trades oil. Unlike your experience in trading Iraqi oil, my personal experience with the whole oil situation is limited. However I was contacted by a head-hunter in 2003 (before "Mission Accomplished") with promises of big money (around 20k/month), 2-month-in and 2-month-out schedules and jobsites protected by the American military to work on new pipeline construction in Iraq. It seems to me that perhaps new construction of pipelines should not be that high on the priority list when your goal is to liberate a population from such an oppressive regime. I guess the new construction would provide Iraqis with good paying jobs though if the work wasn't being done by North Americans.

aoife

NCfan wrote:

When we have the capability to level the entire city of Baghdad, we instead used precision laser-guided bombs to destroy specific buildings and targets. To me, that is trying our best.

oh my god how good of ye.......basically just fuck off, there is no point arguing with someone as thick ignorant and full of shit as you

ONCE DEVIDED

In the first attack ( shock and awe attacks( a 1 year old girl was ripped apart. thats how good those guided weapons are.
Collateral damage bullshit. someones baby more like it.
and thats whats so sad. WHY DO i FEEL GUILT FOR ALL THIS WHEN iVE NEVER SUPORTED IT.
YET THESE WARMONGERS GO YEEHAW.

Byrnzie

aoife wrote:

oh my god how good of ye.......basically just fuck off, there is no point arguing with someone as thick ignorant and full of shit as you

Careful Miss Rodgers! Big brother is watching remember. :rolleyes:

aoife

Byrnzie wrote:

Careful Miss Rodgers! Big brother is watching remember. :rolleyes:

I might end up in room 101

Byrnzie

aoife wrote:

I might end up in room 101

They might deport you to England! :eek:

NCfan

aoife wrote:

oh my god how good of ye.......basically just fuck off, there is no point arguing with someone as thick ignorant and full of shit as you

I don't agree with you so that means i'm think, ignorant and full of shit - nice!

Don't you mean there's no point in arguing with somebody that doesn't agree with you?

gue_barium

NCfan wrote:

I don't agree with you so that means i'm think, ignorant and full of shit - nice!

Don't you mean there's no point in arguing with somebody that doesn't agree with you?

I don't necessarily agree with most of your views, and the major flaw I see in your Iraq argument is that you seem to have confused healthy human conflict and competition as an inevitable right to war. Or, way to war. It's more of a personal thing of yours. That war is always inevitable because that's what humans do.

I think there are probably many examples in history where war looked imminent, yet was avoided, and if you took the time to look those situations up, you might have a different perspective on the way the last 4 years have gone for America in Iraq had we chose not to invade.