Interesting reading .
U.S. would control profits from Iraqi oil exports under agreement
Thoughts ? :thumbsup:
Printable View
Interesting reading .
U.S. would control profits from Iraqi oil exports under agreement
Thoughts ? :thumbsup:
I suppose we Americans should all be happy we're finally getting the oil we murdered thousands of civilians for.
Those who shouted so loud about it not being about the oil are staying very quiet on this one.
I wonder why ?
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 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31
yeah seriously, all those trillions of dollars sure as hell didn't go to the iraqi'sQuote:
Originally Posted by psychocat
I'm surprised anyone still thinks the war wasn't about oil, get your heads out of the sand people
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.
So the war would be about money not oil, correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by issachar
Oil = MoneyQuote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobPA
How can that be justified ?
A bullshit war started with bullshit reasons .
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".
Freedom is innate. We are all born free, it is others who enslave us.Quote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31
Your understanding of the situation is somewhat skewed IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31
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:
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.
Freedom does not equal safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
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
YouTube - Next Big Bio-Fuel - ALGAE
We dont need foreign oil........Bring our kids back home!!!!!!!!Quote:
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
One can say that safety is broad based.Quote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31
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...
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"?
They didn't ask for our "help" we imposed it upon them so what right do we have to expect anything from them ?Quote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31
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.
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!
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31
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"?Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31
This line of logic will take you down a slippery slope.Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
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?
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 ?
Under your original assumption, realities limitations negate the possibility for freedom to exist. You said "whatever you want, whenever you want".Quote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31
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 provided vast examples encompassing many realms of existence.Quote:
I was talking about freedoms that were actually possible.
You are begging the question here.Quote:
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?
Are you saying nobody has ever gotten away with murder completely unsuspected?Quote:
I think not.
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31
PM is disabled on this site; cops must have threatened the administrator or something...
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'Quote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31
I prefer to have my discussions right here ty.Quote:
Originally Posted by apocolips31
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.