Oil !

[psychocat]

Interesting reading .
U.S. would control profits from Iraqi oil exports under agreement (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4046.shtml)

Thoughts ? :thumbsup:

[roninwithnoname]

I suppose we Americans should all be happy we're finally getting the oil we murdered thousands of civilians for.

[psychocat]

Those who shouted so loud about it not being about the oil are staying very quiet on this one.
I wonder why ?

[apocolips31]

Yea, those billions of dollars we will control(not exactly oil) will surely offset those trillions we spent huh?

[psychocat]

Yea, those billions of dollars we will control(not exactly oil) will surely offset those trillions we spent huh?

Would that be the trillions in defence contracts which of course were awarded to US companies ?

[issachar]

Would that be the trillions in defence contracts which of course were awarded to US companies ?

yeah seriously, all those trillions of dollars sure as hell didn't go to the iraqi's

I'm surprised anyone still thinks the war wasn't about oil, get your heads out of the sand people

[killerweed420]

And Obama isn't going to do anything about this. He isn't going to keep his promise to get us out of Iraq. It appears already from statements made by Obama that he will probably keep none of his promises.
I feel sorry for the black community. At last there big chance at change and it appears that greed still trumps everything else.

[apocolips31]

yeah seriously, all those trillions of dollars sure as hell didn't go to the iraqi's

I'm surprised anyone still thinks the war wasn't about oil, get your heads out of the sand people

So the war would be about money not oil, correct?

[psychocat]

So the war would be about money not oil, correct?

Oil = Money

It's about control of resources and installing goverments that do not object to America ripping off Iraq and Afghanistan as long as they get thier cut.

[apocolips31]

Should have titled this thread Money! Not "Oil!" Of course once you invade a country and set up their government you would want them to be friendly to your ways and government. It doesn't mean I agree with it though. So to all the people who said it was for oil were wrong. It was for money. It didn't say we were going to control their oil just proceeds from some of it.

[psychocat]

Should have titled this thread Money! Not "Oil!" Of course once you invade a country and set up their government you would want them to be friendly to your ways and government. It doesn't mean I agree with it though. So to all the people who said it was for oil were wrong. It was for money. It didn't say we were going to control their oil just proceeds from some of it.

Extremely silly considering that without the oil Iraq wouldn't be a big enough earner to interest US companies.
It was most definately about the oil and any other resources we can hijack.

Whichever way you paint it the result is the same , all those who proclaimed it was to
A Unseat a tyrant
B Catch Terrorists
C Bring democracy
D For the Iraqi people
E Any and all of the above
need to take a quick reality check.

I am willing to discuss anything you wish but you seem to be hooked up on the OIL versus MONEY thing and we both know that oil is the Iraqis international currency.

[RobPA]

Interesting reading .
U.S. would control profits from Iraqi oil exports under agreement (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4046.shtml)

Thoughts ? :thumbsup:


Its about time we got somthing out of all the deficits this war has created for us, especially since Iraq is experiencing a budget surplus.

[psychocat]

Its about time we got somthing out of all the deficits this war has created for us, especially since Iraq is experiencing a budget surplus.

Please explain why any country should be allowed to wage war for financial gain when the country in question claims to be against such actions.
How can that be justified ?

A bullshit war started with bullshit reasons .

[apocolips31]

Look I like to be technical with things as I am sure you probably do as well. The technicality of the matter is if we are there for anything other then the official reason it would be for money not oil. Lots of people in the beginning of the war said we were there ,because we wanted cheap oil not money and now what was said is spun. As for us controlling those proceeds, while we were the ones that destroyed their former government and put them in this position. They must be willing to help out in all aspects of the fight themselves. Whether this be man power, money, or political support. "Freedom isn't free".

[roninwithnoname]

"Freedom isn't free".

Freedom is innate. We are all born free, it is others who enslave us.

[psychocat]

Look I like to be technical with things as I am sure you probably do as well. The technicality of the matter is if we are there for anything other then the official reason it would be for money not oil. Lots of people in the beginning of the war said we were there ,because we wanted cheap oil not money and now what was said is spun. As for us controlling those proceeds, while we were the ones that destroyed their former government and put them in this position. They must be willing to help out in all aspects of the fight themselves. Whether this be man power, money, or political support. "Freedom isn't free".

Your understanding of the situation is somewhat skewed IMO.
Are you attempting to justify starting an illegal war and then having the audacity to demand control of that countries wealth ?
I could understand your argument had it been a case of the Iraqi people asking to be "liberated" (invaded :D) , the truth however is that they never did.

I am a pedant and I will once again point out that Iraq has OIL ,in a commodity market oil equals money, not money equals oil.
Cheap oil for the consumer is of no concern to the companies as the cheaper they sell it the less profits they make, they want to be able to justify sky high prices because then they can max out thier profits.
The goverment taxes the oil so they're getting thier cut to.

Wouldn't the statement "Freedom isn't free" be something of an oxymoron , with the emphasis on the last two syllables of the word ? :thumbsup:

[apocolips31]

I never said I justified the invasion which is what I consider it as well. I DO NOT AGREE with us invading Iraq. I think that is was stupid and based on bad intelligence which was based just as much on our allies as our own. However I believe sense we are there and so many died for the cause, why make their lives worth nothing? We should stay and finish the war or it will all be in vein. As for the money I still think that "Freedom isn't free" and that if they want it they must help us to attain that goal in ALL aspects. As for what you said about money not equaling oil, then how do you get gas every week? Money=whatever you want, Oil is the same.

[GoldenBoy812]

"Freedom isn't free".

Freedom does not equal safety.

Freedom is free, it is safety that is not. And those who are willing to trade freedom for safety get duped every time.

[apocolips31]

Freedom does not equal safety.

Freedom is free, it is safety that is not. And those who are willing to trade freedom for safety get duped every time.

That quote is broad. Freedom covers many aspects of life safety being one of them. The rest I totally agree with.

[VapedG13]

The USA already has a way to produce enough oil for the entire USA without any foreign oil dependancy!!!!


Algae will/ can produce every type of gas/oil

YouTube - The Algae That Saved the Planet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miNn8DyKSC0&NR=1)

YouTube - Next Big Bio-Fuel - ALGAE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9_-ZguuhBw&feature=related)



If the USA took a area 1/10 the size of New Mexico converted to Algae production we could meet ALL the energy demands for the entire USA

We dont need foreign oil........Bring our kids back home!!!!!!!!

[GoldenBoy812]

That quote is broad. Freedom covers many aspects of life safety being one of them. The rest I totally agree with.

One can say that safety is broad based.

1.) If a child is not free to go where he/she pleases, will their safety be lessoned or greatened?

2.) If a child is free to go where he/she pleases, will their safety be lessened or greatened?

3.) Similarly, if a child is free to go where he/she pleases and does not choose to leave, has their safety been lessened or greatened?

4.) Also, if a child is not free to go where he/she pleases and does so anyway, is their freedom lessoned or greatened?

From this example we can see that freedom and safety are not mutually exclusive. In examples 1 & 2, the aspect of freedom did not factor into whether or not the child was more/less safe because freedom had nothing to do with it. Yet in example's 3 & 4, personal choice was the determining factor. In that same example, we see a contrast in negative vs positive freedom expressed via choice. Choice, the main aspect of freedom, was present even as an activity such as going somewhere was forbidden in one example and allowed in the other, which puts forth the question:

If one is always truly free (ability to make a choice), how can one be truly safe (being invulnerable to harm)?

The only choice is to eliminate choice, which is nearly impossible without killing everyone and everything. In doing so, the last person alive shall receive a great deal of freedom, and yet they are not truly safe. Weather, natural disasters, and starvation are present.

Therefore there is no such thing as being safe. You are either more safe, or less safe depending on paradox of factors that are ungovernable...

[apocolips31]

Of course..... I doubt anyone really thinks one can be completely "safe". The term Freedom and safety is not going to be the same in ever situation. So for each scenario you would need to tweak the level of safety or Freedom. I mean is anyone really "free"? Or is anyone really "safe"?

[psychocat]

I never said I justified the invasion which is what I consider it as well. I DO NOT AGREE with us invading Iraq. I think that is was stupid and based on bad intelligence which was based just as much on our allies as our own. However I believe sense we are there and so many died for the cause, why make their lives worth nothing? We should stay and finish the war or it will all be in vein. As for the money I still think that "Freedom isn't free" and that if they want it they must help us to attain that goal in ALL aspects. As for what you said about money not equaling oil, then how do you get gas every week? Money=whatever you want, Oil is the same.

They didn't ask for our "help" we imposed it upon them so what right do we have to expect anything from them ?
What gave us the right to even set foot in thier country in the first place.

BTW
Please don't insult my intelligence by bringing that biased outfit known as the UN into the fray.

[overgrowthegovt]

FUCK! Once again I'm absolutely disgusted with not only the U.S. government but the entire Western world and everything we stand for. We're a bunch of self-righteous, violent, economically and ideologically imperialistic fucking thieves who demand that the world be alligned according to our interests and sense of entitlement and privilege, and anybody who refuses to kow-tow is crushed underfoot like the fucking ants we regard anybody else as. Our coporations have successfully de facto overturned the abolitionist 13th Amendment, and have created a global system of sweat shop labour to keep our Hummers running and our conspicuous consumption flowing. Propaganda and assertions of moral superiority, as well as public indifference and increasing technologically-induced idiocy, make this violence and theft the accepted status quo. WAKE THE FUCK UP! WE INVADE COUNTRIES, BOMB THEIR VILLAGES AND SPRAY CHILDRENS' BRAINS ACROSS THE STREETS, SO BIG OIL CAN MAKE A BUCK!

[apocolips31]

Don't worry I hate the UN as much as you. They do nothing but, complain and put sanctions on countries that are ineffective. As for Iraq I don't think we have a "right" to be there, but to help someone you have to teach them to help themselves. We already did the big parts they just need to help chip in especially when they are sitting on a huge surplus. We are building schools and roads that weren't there before we invaded. If were going to just put it back to the way it was before ,of course we should be the only ones to pay then, but we are making it better than before.

[GoldenBoy812]

Of course..... I doubt anyone really thinks one can be completely "safe". The term Freedom and safety is not going to be the same in ever situation. So for each scenario you would need to tweak the level of safety or Freedom. I mean is anyone really "free"? Or is anyone really "safe"?

As the existence of this site demonstrates, you are always free until free choice has been removed. Cannabis is not legal, hence we are not "free" to use it. The whole premise of marijuana prohibition is to protect society from itself (make us more safe). Yet does this legislation realize its goal? No, because i am correct.

Comparatively, does police presence increase the safety of an area? I would say yes, because it might deter a human being from acting irrational. Yet a police presence does not equate to lack of freedom, it is balanced out by ones ability to enact negative freedom. Just because a cop is around does not mean i cannot kill somebody in front of him; all his presence indicates is that my choice has potential consequences.

Freedom does not equal safety...

[apocolips31]

As the existence of this site demonstrates, you are always free until free choice has been removed. Cannabis is not legal, hence we are not "free" to use it. The whole premise of marijuana prohibition is to protect society from itself (make us more safe). Yet does this legislation realize its goal? No, because i am correct.

Comparatively, does police presence increase the safety of an area? I would say yes, because it might deter a human being from acting irrational. Yet a police presence does not equate to lack of freedom, it is balanced out by ones ability to enact negative freedom. Just because a cop is around does not mean i cannot kill somebody in front of him; all his presence indicates is that my choice has potential consequences.

Freedom does not equal safety...

Like I said it is not the same in every situation. What if that cop that was in front of you were quick enough to stop you from killing someone. Your freedom then would be prohibited. It all depends on the situation. So my question once again is can someone be truly "free" or truly "safe"?

[GoldenBoy812]

Like I said it is not the same in every situation. What if that cop that was in front of you were quick enough to stop you from killing someone. Your freedom then would be prohibited. It all depends on the situation. So my question once again is can someone be truly "free" or truly "safe"?

There is a difference between negative and positive freedom. From my previous example, the cop stopping me is not prohibiting my positive freedom, only my negative freedom. I could still choose not to kill anyone (positive). Regardless of whether i was stopped, i still had the freedom to make that choice, i just did not succeed.

If cars traveling 50mph are flying across a road at a rate in which my attempt to cross will decrease, the presence of the cars does not prohibit my freedom, they just might alter my choice. But lets say i go across anyway, and get hit by a car and never make it to the other side; did the car prohibit my freedom? Nope! The success rate of fulfilling my desires does not equate to my level of freedom. I was still free to make the choice, no matter what it actually was. Even if the presence of the cars deterred me from my destination, it was my choice in the end.

As i said before, you are always free until choice is removed. Just like there is no such thing as cold, its either more or less hot; there is no such thing as being safe, its either more or less safe.

[apocolips31]

The end result is still the same, having your freedom prohibited. So no one is completely free or completely safe. While you might be free to commit one act, complete freedom means being able to do whatever you want as many times as you want.

[GoldenBoy812]

The end result is still the same, having your freedom prohibited. So no one is completely free or completely safe.

Again you are incorrect. Lets try again. Marijuana is illegal in the US, hence you do not have the positive freedom to consume marijuana in the US, known as marijuana prohibition. Yet if we are not free to consume cannabis, why is this action taking place? Better yet, how is this action taking place if we are not free to do so?


While you might be free to commit one act, complete freedom means being able to do whatever you want as many times as you want.

This line of logic will take you down a slippery slope.

I do not have the power to lift a oil barge from the water with my mind even though i want to. If freedom is doing whatever you want, whenever you want, i am not free in this situation.

Similarly:

I do not have the power to lift an oil barge from the water with my mind, and i do not want to. If freedom is doing whatever you want, whenever you want, i am free in this situation.

How is it that i was not free in the first example, but free in the second?

I await your response to the question above.

[psychocat]

Don't worry I hate the UN as much as you. They do nothing but, complain and put sanctions on countries that are ineffective. As for Iraq I don't think we have a "right" to be there, but to help someone you have to teach them to help themselves. We already did the big parts they just need to help chip in especially when they are sitting on a huge surplus. We are building schools and roads that weren't there before we invaded. If were going to just put it back to the way it was before ,of course we should be the only ones to pay then, but we are making it better than before.


Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you then saying
It's okay to destroy a shitload of stuff and then rebuild it and to top it off you also expect to be paid for doing it ?

I feel sure my local builders would be interested in that sort of deal. :D

[overgrowthegovt]

Don't worry I hate the UN as much as you. They do nothing but, complain and put sanctions on countries that are ineffective. As for Iraq I don't think we have a "right" to be there, but to help someone you have to teach them to help themselves. We already did the big parts they just need to help chip in especially when they are sitting on a huge surplus. We are building schools and roads that weren't there before we invaded. If were going to just put it back to the way it was before ,of course we should be the only ones to pay then, but we are making it better than before.

Tell that to someone who saw their son's guts blown over the road in the holy name of the American economic agenda. Yes, I know Hussein was a dictator and that he killed a lot of people, but not nearly as many as have been lost and will continue to be lost in this invasion. There was at least a basic stability--with the situation now, we'll have insurgents running amok killing people until the Western presence is completely gone.

[apocolips31]

Again you are incorrect. Lets try again. Marijuana is illegal in the US, hence you do not have the positive freedom to consume marijuana in the US, known as marijuana prohibition. Yet if we are not free to consume cannabis, why is this action taking place? Better yet, how is this action taking place if we are not free to do so?



This line of logic will take you down a slippery slope.

I do not have the power to lift a oil barge from the water with my mind even though i want to. If freedom is doing whatever you want, whenever you want, i am not free in this situation.

Similarly:

I do not have the power to lift an oil barge from the water with my mind, and i do not want to. If freedom is doing whatever you want, whenever you want, i am free in this situation.

How is it that i was not free in the first example, but free in the second?

I await your response to the question above.

Ok first of all I thought we are talking about reality, you know the thing with limitations. I was talking about freedoms that were actually possible. Also for the cannabis example that is one of the acts you may be free to commit but, could you go kill someone and be free not to suffer any consequences? I think not. So like I said freedom is being able to do whatever you want, when you want and how many times you want(with in reality's limitations.....).So the end result is still the same , your freedom being prohibited.
This part is to psycho, I do not think that is what I said at all. I do not think we should be allowed to bust someones shit up and then get paid for doing it. But when you bust someones car up and pay for it to be fixed and then add in a better engine or plasma tvs in the back seats you should be paid partly for it. I am not saying we should be paid back full or even half or even a tenth, but when you have money coming out your ass and ask us to stay even longer I think they can help chip in.
This is for overgrow, I don't know exactly to what you are responding to but, if you think I am for the Iraq war you are sadly mistaken. I think that invading Iraq was one of the worst decisions the US has made this century. But as llife would have it mistakes are made and this happens to be a big one. So should we just fuck all the shit up and then say fix it your damn self or stay and make sure that they can actually ride the bike by themselves before taking off the training wheels?

[psychocat]

The more I read from you apocolips31 the more convinced I become that you are insane.
You go in without an invite , blow the shit out of the place and then expect the people to be grateful that you are setting up a puppet goverment and getting paid for it too.

Do you not see the stupidity of what you believe ?

[GoldenBoy812]

Ok first of all I thought we are talking about reality, you know the thing with limitations.

Under your original assumption, realities limitations negate the possibility for freedom to exist. You said "whatever you want, whenever you want".

If i want to break into Fort. Knox and steal all of the gold, what effect does not bringing a truck have on my freedom? Without a truck to carry the tons of dense metal, i would not be able to steal all of the gold, therefore under your assertion, my lack of possessing a truck is limiting my freedom.

But... if i were a rational being who cared about my self interest, not having a truck might factor into my decision along with the armed guards, and potential death or imprisonment.

So where i am free to attempt anything i want, in doing so i must accept the fact that a possibility of failure does exist. Therefore the potential risk of failure cannot be thought of as the potential loss of freedom. When a potential risk of failure alters my decision, and i choose not to do something; i was free to make that decision. Cohesion equals potential risk of failure only if cohesion also equals potential satisfaction.


I was talking about freedoms that were actually possible. I provided vast examples encompassing many realms of existence.


Also for the cannabis example that is one of the acts you may be free to commit but, could you go kill someone and be free not to suffer any consequences?

You are begging the question here.


I think not.

Are you saying nobody has ever gotten away with murder completely unsuspected?


So like I said freedom is being able to do whatever you want, when you want and how many times you want(with in reality's limitations.....).So the end result is still the same , your freedom being prohibited.

If I do not want to do something, and someone puts a gun to my head telling me to do it or i die, my freedom is being prohibited. Reason be, cohesion is equaling both potential risk and reward. You are unknowingly labeling freedom as a zero sum game. The situation i described above is a zero sum game, where risk = reward. In this situation, choice has been removed, hence the ability to choose = freedom.

[apocolips31]

........This is getting tiresome. This conversation is obviously never going to end. We have been stuck on what the definition and levels of freedom are for quite some time now.You have these weird impossible examples trying to prove your point. In each case the end result is the same, freedom being prohibited. No matter if you can get away with 999 things out of 1,000, it only takes once for your freedom to be prohibited. Unless you believe their has actually been one person in the entire span of human existence that hasn't been prohibited from doing something at some point in their life. Thus no one can ever TRULY be free. Lets have a hypothetical scenario shall we? Lets say a prisoner is in prison(of course lol) and that he is free to get up and use the bathroom when ever he wants OK? So he is free for this moment in time for this certain action. Now lets say he wants to get out of his cell and use the restroom at the citgo, but sense he is a prisoner he can't. So in this situation his freedom was prohibited.What have we learned? That just ,because someone is free in one instance doesn't mean that they are truly free in another or at all. Enough of hijacking this thread if you want to continue this conversation lets continue it by private means. To Psycho: strange and to think I think the same of you lol. The argument that we have is open ended. We can sit here all day arguing and throwing analogy's at each other. If you want to continue this discussion then please pm me.

[GoldenBoy812]

........This is getting tiresome. This conversation is obviously never going to end. We have been stuck on what the definition and levels of freedom are for quite some time now.You have these weird impossible examples trying to prove your point. In each case the end result is the same, freedom being prohibited. No matter if you can get away with 999 things out of 1,000, it only takes once for your freedom to be prohibited. Unless you believe their has actually been one person in the entire span of human existence that hasn't been prohibited from doing something at some point in their life. Thus no one can ever TRULY be free. Lets have a hypothetical scenario shall we? Lets say a prisoner is in prison(of course lol) and that he is free to get up and use the bathroom when ever he wants OK? So he is free for this moment in time for this certain action. Now lets say he wants to get out of his cell and use the restroom at the citgo, but sense he is a prisoner he can't. So in this situation his freedom was prohibited.What have we learned? That just ,because someone is free in one instance doesn't mean that they are truly free in another or at all. Enough of hijacking this thread if you want to continue this conversation lets continue it by private means. To Psycho: strange and to think I think the same of you lol. The argument that we have is open ended. We can sit here all day arguing and throwing analogy's at each other. If you want to continue this discussion then please pm me.

The point i am trying to make is that freedom is the ability to choose. My argument is based on logic, not perception or deviation of the topic at hand. If you have found faults or unsoundness in my logic, by all means do explain. Just because you believe something to be so, does not make it so. By offering support to back up your assertions, it will be much harder for me to critique your premises.

PM is disabled on this site; cops must have threatened the administrator or something...

[apocolips31]

I feel I made my reasoning quite clear. Enough of bickering over the definition of a word. I already reached my limit on this one. Fun to debate with you though, I always enjoy it. I guess at this point we have to agree to disagree.

[GoldenBoy812]

I feel I made my reasoning quite clear. Enough of bickering over the definition of a word. I already reached my limit on this one. Fun to debate with you though, I always enjoy it. I guess at this point we have to agree to disagree.

Touche'

[psychocat]

... To Psycho: strange and to think I think the same of you lol. The argument that we have is open ended. We can sit here all day arguing and throwing analogy's at each other. If you want to continue this discussion then please pm me.

I prefer to have my discussions right here ty.

Please tell me how much an Iraqi or Americans life is worth ?

Did you conveniently forget the human cost ?

That is why your obsession with getting a buck out of the "effort" comes across as pure greed.

[apocolips31]

I do not put a price on either life. If you so highly value all of their life's, then why make them worth nothing by simply pulling out and stopping right here? Why not make them worth something more than just a statistic? How many more will die if we just pull out without Iraq having a stable government? Do you think all the terrorists will just welcome back all the so call "traitors" that help the Americans?

[psychocat]

I do not put a price on either life. If you so highly value all of their life's, then why make them worth nothing by simply pulling out and stopping right here? Why not make them worth something more than just a statistic? How many more will die if we just pull out without Iraq having a stable government? Do you think all the terrorists will just welcome back all the so call "traitors" that help the Americans?

Chronology

America and Britain take it upon themselves to invade Iraq (WMD :wtf:) thereby further destabilising the region .
Thousands of deaths later we set up a goverment that we approve of.
We then demand control over the profits of thier oil ,thier only true resource.

Do you not see that without the initial agression from America and Britain this whole situation would not exist , however that is not the case and we must clean up the mess "WE" created and I don't see why we should profit from all the misery that we have caused.

How would that possibly be right ?

[Cederfern]

Oil = Money

It's about control of resources and installing goverments that do not object to America ripping off Iraq and Afghanistan as long as they get thier cut.

fort knox is going to be converted to a refinery some day... :mad:


how much time do we have before the USD is backed by oil?

[apocolips31]

Chronology

America and Britain take it upon themselves to invade Iraq (WMD :wtf:) thereby further destabilising the region .
Thousands of deaths later we set up a goverment that we approve of.
We then demand control over the profits of thier oil ,thier only true resource.

Do you not see that without the initial agression from America and Britain this whole situation would not exist , however that is not the case and we must clean up the mess "WE" created and I don't see why we should profit from all the misery that we have caused.

How would that possibly be right ?

Definition of profit is the amount of money left over from income after all expenses have been paid. I hardly think a few billions is going to make up for trillions. So their is no "profit", just us not spending as much of our money. What is wrong with all the legs moving in the same direction?

[psychocat]

Definition of profit is the amount of money left over from income after all expenses have been paid. I hardly think a few billions is going to make up for trillions.

Trillions that the US goverment spent with American defence contractors to supply weapons to start a war they had no place starting


So their is no "profit", just us not spending as much of our money. What is wrong with all the legs moving in the same direction?

As long as those legs are doing what the west wants them to of course :beatdeadhorse:
If someone came to your house and fucked your shit up , killed members of your family and then demanded part of your money for the trouble are you telling me that you would pay ?

My reaction would be :S4:

If you are trying to tell me you would be okay with that, then you sir are either a compulsive liar or a complete coward, if someone tried that shit with me I would grab a gun and make then as sorry as hell.

[RobPA]

Chronology

America and Britain take it upon themselves to invade Iraq (WMD :wtf:) thereby further destabilising the region .
Thousands of deaths later we set up a goverment that we approve of.
We then demand control over the profits of thier oil ,thier only true resource.

Do you not see that without the initial agression from America and Britain this whole situation would not exist , however that is not the case and we must clean up the mess "WE" created and I don't see why we should profit from all the misery that we have caused.

How would that possibly be right ?



So what do you suggest we do?? Doc hasent invented the flux capacitor yet so theres no way we can go back in time. The bottom line is we gotta cleanup the mess we made there and the security in training there people is costing us money, the US taxpayers. With the Iraqi's approving the security pact and the country stabilizing with the economy seeing a surplus we should see at least some of that cash for training etc, etc.

[apocolips31]

Trillions that the US goverment spent with American defence contractors to supply weapons to start a war they had no place starting



As long as those legs are doing what the west wants them to of course :beatdeadhorse:
If someone came to your house and fucked your shit up , killed members of your family and then demanded part of your money for the trouble are you telling me that you would pay ?

My reaction would be :S4:

If you are trying to tell me you would be okay with that, then you sir are either a compulsive liar or a complete coward, if someone tried that shit with me I would grab a gun and make then as sorry as hell.
If it were just like that yes I would do the same. The reality being that they were already held hostage by their own government, which openly said they had WMD's and would use them. So our intelligence and our allies intelligence and even our enemy's actions were all saying the same thing, that Iraq had WMD. So we then put in place a democracy which voted and asked us to stay longer than the UN mandate. So when we are struggling to keep two wars going and have to bail out numerous company's at home you would have Iraq sit there with a fat wallet and not help out their own well being? So you are saying just because, the West wants Iraq to have a stable government that it is a bad thing? Yes, I see your reasoning....

[psychocat]

If it were just like that yes I would do the same. The reality being that they were already held hostage by their own government, which openly said they had WMD's and would use them. So our intelligence and our allies intelligence and even our enemy's actions were all saying the same thing, that Iraq had WMD

The so called intelligence on Iraq has been discredited so many times that it suprises me that you have the gall to bring it up yet again.

.
So we then put in place a democracy which voted and asked us to stay longer than the UN mandate..
Puppet goverment you mean.


So when we are struggling to keep two wars going and have to bail out numerous company's at home you would have Iraq sit there with a fat wallet and not help out their own well being?.

How in hells name is it any responsibility of Iraq to bail out thier INVADERS ! That borders on insanity, any invader of Britain can expect me to do all I can to convince them to fuck off and never come back, why would the Iraqis feel any different ?

They didn't want our help, they didn't ask for it, we forced it on them so please tell me how it is logical that they should pay ?


So you are saying just because, the West wants Iraq to have a stable government that it is a bad thing? Yes, I see your reasoning....

Really ?
Do you believe that yourself or are you just toeing the party line ?
Why is it so difficult to see what is so plain ?

Puppet goverments
Access to oil profits (see link in first post) and resources
Middle east and Afghan bases.
Expansion of global markets into previously hostile regions.
They are the reasons America is in Afghanistan and Iraq


So what do you suggest we do?? Doc hasent invented the flux capacitor yet so theres no way we can go back in time. The bottom line is we gotta cleanup the mess we made there and the security in training there people is costing us money, the US taxpayers. With the Iraqi's approving the security pact and the country stabilizing with the economy seeing a surplus we should see at least some of that cash for training etc, etc.

If you don't ask for help but another takes it upon themselves to help you by blowing up your house and killing your friends and family , you would then be happy for that person to also take some of your money ?

I really don't think so

[apocolips31]

How about the the statements Saddam made about having WMD's? Take it from the horses mouth.How is helping us out money wise not helping them selves out? They don't have all the technological advances we have that help to give all of us an edge in the fight against terrorism. keeping those advanced technology going costs a lot of money. I don't expect them to pay us back at all, if anything we lost a shit load of money in Iraq that few billions will not make up for. I mean just look at how our economy is partly thanks to the two wars. Why let the money just sit there and pile up when it could be put to good use? It is not as if we are stealing the money they are voluntarily giving it to us. Also last time I checked not every Iraqi hates us and yes, there are those who actually want us to stay there. Where do you get your sources that say other wise?

[psychocat]

How about the the statements Saddam made about having WMD's? Take it from the horses mouth.How is helping us out money wise not helping them selves out? They don't have all the technological advances we have that help to give all of us an edge in the fight against terrorism. keeping those advanced technology going costs a lot of money. I don't expect them to pay us back at all, if anything we lost a shit load of money in Iraq that few billions will not make up for. I mean just look at how our economy is partly thanks to the two wars. Why let the money just sit there and pile up when it could be put to good use? It is not as if we are stealing the money they are voluntarily giving it to us. Also last time I checked not every Iraqi hates us and yes, there are those who actually want us to stay there. Where do you get your sources that say other wise?

You must have been hiding in a hole for an awful long time if you don't know that the whole WMD has been done to death and the conclusion is still the same, it was a bullshit excuse .http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/international/middleeast/11intel.html

The two illegal wars that were started under false pretences have cost lives on all sides.
Do you think anyone should pay for wars that America and Britain started other than America and Britain and if so why ?

BTW
Your economy is in the shit because of mismanagement and bad decisions by US companies, what has Iraq got to do with sub prime loans ?BBC NEWS | Business | Q&A: Sub-prime lending (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5144662.stm)
What has Iraq got to do with Ford or GM ?Ford Unveils Deeper Cuts To Fend Off Financial Crisis JOSEPH B. WHITE & JEFFREY MCCRACKEN / Wall Street Journal 15sep2006 (http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/2006/Ford-Financial-Crisis15sep06.htm)
You can believe whatever you want but the reality is that America is in financial shit because of America not because of anyone else so why should anyone but America pay ?

[apocolips31]

You must have been hiding in a hole for an awful long time if you don't know that the whole WMD has been done to death and the conclusion is still the same, it was a bullshit excuse .http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/11/international/middleeast/11intel.html

The two illegal wars that were started under false pretences have cost lives on all sides.
Do you think anyone should pay for wars that America and Britain started other than America and Britain and if so why ?

BTW
Your economy is in the shit because of mismanagement and bad decisions by US companies, what has Iraq got to do with sub prime loans ?BBC NEWS | Business | Q&A: Sub-prime lending (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5144662.stm)
What has Iraq got to do with Ford or GM ?Ford Unveils Deeper Cuts To Fend Off Financial Crisis JOSEPH B. WHITE & JEFFREY MCCRACKEN / Wall Street Journal 15sep2006 (http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/2006/Ford-Financial-Crisis15sep06.htm)
You can believe whatever you want but the reality is that America is in financial shit because of America not because of anyone else so why should anyone but America pay ?

Note that I said partly the reason. How much money would we have to help stem off financial disasters likes this if we hadn't gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq? If having a stable democracy is good for the people of Iraq , what is wrong with everyone working towards a common goal? Is not everyone pulling together better than someone pulling alone? I do not see why you are so against the people of Iraq being able to choose for themselves, Or do you like the ways of old better? I am not saying invading Iraq wasn't a mistake, because it was,but If they are giving this cash up voluntarily what is wrong with that? Maybe they see the need to help us out for our logistical support, as they basically have none. So of course our operations are going to be much more costly than their own. How many life's might that money save instead of sitting in a bank somewhere? Why waste a resource when everything today is so strapped for cash?

[GoldenBoy812]

fort knox is going to be converted to a refinery some day... :mad:


how much time do we have before the USD is backed by oil?

LOL, since when is it backed by gold? Or anything for that matter?

[psychocat]

Note that I said partly the reason. How much money would we have to help stem off financial disasters likes this if we hadn't gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

None because the retards running the finances of your country are as inept as they possibly could be, the money spent on the war went to certain US companies, Backwater and Haliburton have done rather well out of it all.
The list of US companies involved is staggering so therefore the money spent on the war goes to US companies.


If having a stable democracy is good for the people of Iraq , what is wrong with everyone working towards a common goal?

Who told you the Iraqis want to be like the US ?
A common goal determined by the US you mean.


Is not everyone pulling together better than someone pulling alone? I do not see why you are so against the people of Iraq being able to choose for themselves,

What choice was given when the US and Britain invaded ?
Are you saying that the Iraqi people wanted us to invade because I simply do not believe that.


Or do you like the ways of old better? I am not saying invading Iraq wasn't a mistake,

You bet it was, even dumbass Bush admits that.


because it was,but If they are giving this cash up voluntarily what is wrong with that? Maybe they see the need to help us out for our logistical support, as they basically have none. So of course our operations are going to be much more costly than their own.

Where did you get that idea ?
Why on earth would Iraq give control of it's oil profits to a blindingly greedy nation like the US ?
Remember that a man with a gun to his head will agree to just about anything.


How many live's might that money save instead of sitting in a bank somewhere?

Are you saying that the money the US takes will be used in Iraq ?
How does it benefit Iraq if the money ends up in America ?



Why waste a resource when everything today is so strapped for cash?

It wouldn't be wasted , it would be in the hands of the rightful owners instead of being thieved by the west.

BTW

Halliburton ,Veritas Capital Fund/DynCorp , Washington Group International , Environmental Chemical , Aegis , International American Products , Erinys , Fluor , Perini , URS Corporation , Parsons , First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting , .

Just some of the companies getting thier slice of the pie.

[McDanger]

Tell that to someone who saw their son's guts blown over the road in the holy name of the American economic agenda. Yes, I know Hussein was a dictator and that he killed a lot of people, but not nearly as many as have been lost and will continue to be lost in this invasion. There was at least a basic stability--with the situation now, we'll have insurgents running amok killing people until the Western presence is completely gone.
Then what was in all those mass graves that were found? Hussein killed millions, we did not.
Pakistan has bombings every day despite a lack of western presence. These terrorists will not stop until either they are all dead or we are. Better them than me.

[psychocat]

Then what was in all those mass graves that were found? Hussein killed millions, we did not.
Pakistan has bombings every day despite a lack of western presence. These terrorists will not stop until either they are all dead or we are. Better them than me.

I fear that some people have fallen victim to the propoganda and paranoia.
I am increasingly suprised that stoners who have seen through the whole war on drugs bullshit simply cannot see that the war on terror is just as big a crock of shit.

[McDanger]

I fear that some people have fallen victim to the propoganda and paranoia.
I am increasingly suprised that stoners who have seen through the whole war on drugs bullshit simply cannot see that the war on terror is just as big a crock of shit.

I just take the terrorists at their word. They want the entire world ruled by sharia law.

[psychocat]

I just take the terrorists at their word. They want the entire world ruled by sharia law.

Really !
You're going off topic but I will answer anyway.

10 million potheads want legal cannabis but it hasn't happened yet, what makes you think a few extremists are going to get what they want.
YouTube - The Power of Nightmares-Part1 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk1WkmioQvA)

We live in a time where the media is simply a propoganda tool and the truth is distorted to fit the agenda of the people in charge.:mad:

I buy into and believe in the war on terror about as much as I buy into and believe the bull about the war on drugs .

These wars were never about terrorism and all about control.

[apocolips31]

We both obviously our dead set in our views so when the conversation runs in a circle, I think it is time to end it. As always I enjoy our debates and look forward to more in the future.