USA Will Take Over Iraq's Oil...

[Ant]

Let me break down this oil problem...

First to reiterate:  If we wanted the oil we could have took it the first time.  

Secondly, the proceeds from the sale of any iraqi oil goes to the nation of iraq.  The US doesn't not steal the oil and the profits.  

This may result in a lower price on oil for ALL countries.  A stablized government in Iraq will sell oil at reasonable prices.  By reasonable I mean a value that maximizes benefit on both sides.  The iraqi people will benefit from the sale of oil and the rest of the world will benefit from the use of that oil.

Here is an analogy.  Let's say the United States owned the only water supply for the WHOLE world.  Because the world needs water and the US realizes this we say "fuck you all, pay us $$$$$$$$ actually $$$ isn't enough because we don't care we just want to see the rest of the world fail miserably we don't need money.  We don't even care if our people are dying and living miserable lives we just want to see the rest of the world turn to shit."

or in more realistic terms let's say microsoft sells a really popular program like windows that everyone needs and uses.  Now lets say microsoft is like fuck you all we rule this market we will charge you really high prices and never put out good software.  Guess  happens?  Antitrust case!  Everyone complains that microsoft is taking unfair advantage of a current situtation and fucking us all in the ass.

But now lets consider Iraq?  They own oil.  The world uses oil.  Iraq is like fuck you all its my oil i will charge any price I want and be a dick just to fuck everyone over except myeslf because I'm Saddam and I want 900000000 presidential palaces.  I don't even care about my poeple I want more presidential palaces because I love my presidential palaces.  Right now I have 10,000 but I'm hoping to triple that number by selling everyone one really expensive oil.  Oh fuck they put an embargo on me, well now i just want to blow up everyone and develop biological weaponry to spread disease throughout the world.  

That was a dramatization.  But hopefully you understand the analogy.  And if im really lucky you will understand the contradiction in your criticism.

I am not pro war in Iraq, but if you are going to criticize it do so on grounds other than Oil.  The oil arguement was made up to keep the world's eye off larger issues.  

[Jay ay Beee]

I just want to clarify something because it seems upon re-reading my earlier post I over-emphasised my focus on the war being fought for oil

Reasons for Bush wanting to attack Iraq

1) Stay in the White House
2) Extend dollars, and thus the hegemony goes on

Oil is a part of number 2, but is not the main reason why I am anti-the war.

One statement:

By controlling the direction of Iraq's oil, America can choose which nations benefit economically from the money that is made from sales.  

This is not a good enough reason to fight a war, let alone using it as a means to improve public opinion back home.

I am tired, I've been up all night so may be making some mistakes but my argument is valid and stands.  Also, please: where is the contradiction in my criticism shown in your analogy?  

[Ant]

The contradiction is that if America controlled all the worlds oil many people would complain that we are being unfair, blah blah blah.

The contradiction is that when microsoft or any other monopoly exploits its monopoly power every one complains that they are acting unfairly, people sue, the monopoly company gets sent to court and severely reprimanded.

Iraq has near monopolistic powers on oil.  They control one of the world's largest oil supplies.  If the situation was reversed and the US controlled all this oil then you would complain about how the US controls oil and charges it to everyone else at really high rates and how unfair it is and how the US government is assholes.  But since everyone hates the US, and will cheer on anyone that opposes the US no matter how horrible a country they are, its OK that Saddam controls Iraq's oil.  In fact we want saddam to control the oil just to spite the US and for no other reason.

That is the contradiction.

Iraq is a near monopoly.  Any other monopoly the world agrees is a bad thing, especially when the monopoly exploits its powers unjustly.  Well guess what Iraq is doing, but its OK since Iraq opposes the US.


And

[Jay ay Beee]

Ha, ha you just walked into that my man

Monopolies are bad, because monopolies lead to the possibility of the misuse of what the monopoly is of.  Therefore, you can see that the fairest way to take the world forward is to share the resources between all fairly responsible nations.  It has been announced that the US will basically take it over, giving a tiny amount of Iraq's oil resources to Britain.  So, maybe if the US devised a plan based on sharing the misused resources........

[Don Jacob]

 all i got to say is i own a mustang GT

[Trauma-san]

First off, Stabalize Doesn't mean "taking over the oil fields" so your whole argument isn't worth crap from the first sentence.  

Does anyone else realize the U.S. doesn't get it's oil from the middle east besides me?  

[Maestro Minded]

First off, Stabalize Doesn't mean "taking over the oil fields" so your whole argument isn't worth crap from the first sentence.  

Does anyone else realize the U.S. doesn't get it's oil from the middle east besides me?  

the title/head was "stabilize",.... the content was "taking over their oil"

[Jay ay Beee]

Does anyone else realize the U.S. doesn't get it's oil from the middle east besides me?  

You seen Scarface right?

The USA is Tony Montana

Now think about that metaphor very hard, and try and apply it to what you just said in order to think more clearly about the situation.

[Woodrow]

You've seen Close encounters of the third kind right?

The French are playing the role of Drew Berrymore...

[Don Jacob]

Does anyone else realize the U.S. doesn't get it's oil from the middle east besides me?  

You seen Scarface right?

The USA is Tony Montana

Now think about that metaphor very hard, and try and apply it to what you just said in order to think more clearly about the situation.

 

ok mr comunist, you relise any and every cap. government......hmmmmm like you and yours, can be labled that?

[Ant]

Ha, ha you just walked into that my man

Monopolies are bad, because monopolies lead to the possibility of the misuse of what the monopoly is of.  Therefore, you can see that the fairest way to take the world forward is to share the resources between all fairly responsible nations.  It has been announced that the US will basically take it over, giving a tiny amount of Iraq's oil resources to Britain.  So, maybe if the US devised a plan based on sharing the misused resources........

What did I walk into?  All i did was reiterate myself since.  You didn't set a trap unless I changed my opinion.  I said what I said, and then repeated it again.

I'm really unsure of your arguement here

[Jay ay Beee]

First of all, Jake, you have little or no comprehension of this subject matter beyond your polar world of communist vs capitalist, good vs evil and so on.

Engel: Keep spitting that real deep knowledge man.

Ant my argument is that the USA should step back from Reagan and his two little boy's (Dumb and Dubya) ideologies that lead to ruthless market capitalism.  My argument is that the free world should share its resources in order to help the less well of nations.

Leave the ever so funny 'hippy' allegations that are going to fly my way out of this thread please.