Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by skunk, Jul 6, 2007.
So, the cat is out of the bag at last.
The greatest crime in modern history
From a US foreign policy perspective, there are really two things of importance in the ME; Oil and the US Israeli lobby. They often merge.
I sure the hell wish we could get some cheap gas out of the Iraq ordeal.
Well at least, they're finally saying it...now if we could get the government to stop focusing on Ooil, and focusing on switching to new types of energy, we'd be set.
Its a step... a small one...but its still a step
shhhhh.... don't tell bush about solar power, because he'll start bombing the sun.
We do have cheap gas
Of course! Them nukelar bombs would make it shine more!!
So you mean it wasn't all about WMD's and a secret deal between
Saddam and Bin Laden?
So all that stuff about freedom and democracy was just used to sell an armed
corporate takeover of natural resources?
And all those Blackwater employees are just there for what reason again?
I think I need to sit down.
Then entire country of Australia reached this conclusion, eh?
You might want to look up the word secure. It's mean something different than obtain.
Perhaps you should look it up as one of the possible definitions and the most likely one in this context is to capture it. also when you are trying to convince someone of the meaning of a word please don't say something like "It is mean something..."
Most of us did as soon as the war drums began beating.
But you can't obtain it unless it's secured.
The Aussies honestly admitted that 'resource security' was part of the reason. There's nothing wrong with that. The world's oil resource does not 'belong' to the countries who administer it. It belongs to the whole world. After all the Iranian's can't drink or eat their oil, hell they can't even make their own petrol out of it.
what other commodities follow this rule?
Man, you just opened yourself up for some major hard knocks. Are you seriously suggesting that a country does not own the resources within its geography? Does that mean Cuba can raid Nebraska corn fields if it doesn't agree with how the US uses them?
I actually like this line of thinking...as long as we apply it to all resources and can agree on the following method of distribution: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
I'm not a fool, in spite of the fact I post on the political forums. I'm happy to defend the statement.
Are you seriously suggesting that a country does not own the resources within its geography?
What I'm suggesting is that governments cannot act as childish as we often act on the forums. If Iran is so jacked off with America then why don't they say "if you don't stop helping Israel then we will cut off all your oil". The answer is that they will be the ones to suffer more.
I'm sure that if Western Europe, the US and Australia kept everything for themselves and assisted or traded with no one else, likewise the African countries, then most of the Arab world would still be living in the 13th century, not that there's anything wrong with that. The West would have developed nuclear power to solve their energy needs or other forms of sustainable energy.
But the world is more than the current people who inhabit it. We are just guardians. No I'm not suggesting that everything become a resource that must be sold, for example the rainforests of the Amazon and Indonesia should be sacrosanct, and tribal people should be respected for the life they choose to live.
Are you kidding me?!?! Can any reasonable person honestly believe that tripe?
Un-freaking-believable. You just broke the record for the most obtuse thing I've ever read, and I've read a lot of what swarmlord types.
pretty much everything. ore, crops, water, forests, natural gas, oil, you name it. when china comes for lake tahoe, i think the US gov't might have something to say about it.
So you would have no problem if instead of Iraq the Australians had decided that they wanted the US to dig for oil in Alaska and invaded Alaska to secure the oil there, since that oil belongs to the entire world and not just the US.
It's about common sense. Although it's not really that common.
And I was just going with the assumption that your opinion was true and following common sense from there. isn't it common sense that if the Middle East's oil belongs to the entire world the United States oil belongs to the world?
Sure, it should all be shared around. If Iran wants to buy oil from the US then the US can sell it. But the price might be a bit expensive for them. Oil countries can put whatever price they want on their oil, similarly the US can put whatever price they want on their intellectual property and technology. It works both ways.
You seem not to understand the overall direction in which resources flow. The US consumes more than it produces. If we were to stop trading with anyone else, we would not be able to reproduce the current level of economic activity in the US with US resources alone.
But earlier you were saying that it is fine for the Austrailians to invade Iraq to secure the oil, so the US doesn't currently sell any of the oil in Alaska just answer me yes or no if it is ok to invade Iraq for oil as you have said, would it also be ok for Austrailia to invade the US for their oil?