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.
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.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
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
"If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin castle, unless you set about the organisation of the socialist republic then all of your efforts would have been in vain. England will still rule you through her capitalists ,landlords and commercial institutions"
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.
Careful Miss Rodgers! Big brother is watching remember. :rolleyes:
I might end up in room 101
"If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin castle, unless you set about the organisation of the socialist republic then all of your efforts would have been in vain. England will still rule you through her capitalists ,landlords and commercial institutions"
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.
I think a proportion of the US general public are against the war because it's 'not going well', but have all wars been a straighforward success? No. I've been against the war from the beginning but only due to the fact that it was highly unnecessary and likely to cause significant devestation to a nation already in a shaky state. Those who supported the war back in spring '03 but changed their stance, I think, did so for a similar reason to mine: No WMD's, ensuing civil war, horrendous casualty on all sides and the arrogance of the commanding forces denying these issues. I'm sure World War Two, The Battle of Hastings and the Thirty Years War had their ups and downs, but the majority supported these conflicts as they were needed to preserve existance.
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 agree with aoife, there are some things you can get over if you disagree with someone about them but other thinggs are insurmontable because a persons views can highlight a complete arrogance and stupidity in them and you may as well be talking to a wall, which in this case is true, hello wall how are you today? Like for example would you bother your time arguing with a racist. Jesus am i still talking to a wall i must be crazy
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.
You're right, I do think that is what humans do. Why do you believe otherwise? Hasn't history shown us over and over that humans fight and kill each other? I doubt there has been one day in the last 1,000 years where one human hasn't killed another human.
I think one day we will overcome this, but societies have to evolve and that is going to take a long, long time. Ironically I think the US and other countries are at the front of that evolution because we have created a government that while not perfect respects the differences of other humans - religious, race, etc. Now think a little bit what I mean by that before you rebute that statement...
I'm scared that we'll end up destroying the planet before that ever happens.
In the case of Iraq, there was simply no way to talk Saddam out of power. There was absolutely no chance that the citizens were going to overthrow Saddam either.
The case for WMD's was believable and it made sense to support the invasion. It turned out that was a lie, and I was literally crushed. That was probably one of the most confusing times of my life thinking that my government lied to the world to start this war... It was terrible and I was soo upset.
Then I read a few articles about how the WMD issue was a lost cause but it would be worse to abandon the Iraqi's and we had a moral obligation to fix their country. So I here I go again "supporting the war" when in reality all I'm supporting is our troops maintaining order so a government could be formed.
What kind of ethics did the anti-war camp have to just want to up and abandon the Iraqi people and leave them to a civil war? Did they not care if the Sunni's were masacared?
So this is why I support the war. We need to fix the country we broke....
looks like someone created a new screen name after being banned, how clever
ament i just:D i was wondering would anyone notice, well its not mine to be quite honost but a good friend of mine was nice enough to lend me their name
ament i just:D i was wondering would anyone notice, well its not mine to be quite honost but a good friend of mine was nice enough to lend me their name
Comments
Ah, I didn't realize that.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Careful Miss Rodgers! Big brother is watching remember. :rolleyes:
They might deport you to England! :eek:
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.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
You're right, I do think that is what humans do. Why do you believe otherwise? Hasn't history shown us over and over that humans fight and kill each other? I doubt there has been one day in the last 1,000 years where one human hasn't killed another human.
I think one day we will overcome this, but societies have to evolve and that is going to take a long, long time. Ironically I think the US and other countries are at the front of that evolution because we have created a government that while not perfect respects the differences of other humans - religious, race, etc. Now think a little bit what I mean by that before you rebute that statement...
I'm scared that we'll end up destroying the planet before that ever happens.
In the case of Iraq, there was simply no way to talk Saddam out of power. There was absolutely no chance that the citizens were going to overthrow Saddam either.
The case for WMD's was believable and it made sense to support the invasion. It turned out that was a lie, and I was literally crushed. That was probably one of the most confusing times of my life thinking that my government lied to the world to start this war... It was terrible and I was soo upset.
Then I read a few articles about how the WMD issue was a lost cause but it would be worse to abandon the Iraqi's and we had a moral obligation to fix their country. So I here I go again "supporting the war" when in reality all I'm supporting is our troops maintaining order so a government could be formed.
What kind of ethics did the anti-war camp have to just want to up and abandon the Iraqi people and leave them to a civil war? Did they not care if the Sunni's were masacared?
So this is why I support the war. We need to fix the country we broke....
You're not meant to own up to it! :rolleyes:
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!