Can someone explain to me what's wrong with a war for oil policy?

[Zebo]

I mean why should we let one man control and influence on such a precious commodity?

Edit:L And should'nt Americas economic intrests be first and foremost in our presidents mind before the UN EU or whatever wannabe international body is viing for the same thing we are?

 

[konichiwa]

The White Man's Burden 2

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Well . . . why should we let one family do it in Saudi Arabia? The international community (read China, France, Russia) should certainly have done SOMETHING to encourage reform in Iraq . . . other than selling them weapons. But the US doesn't care about the world or the people of Iraq, either.

If the average fuel economy of a US vehicle was 40mpg . . . FOXNews would still be reporting the Ramsey kidnapping. Who knows what the Founders would say but sending US troops to die b/c US domestic policy stinks should be a capital offense.

 

[Piano Man]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
The White Man's Burden 2

LOL. Totally agree.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Piano Man

Originally posted by: konichiwa
The White Man's Burden 2

LOL. Totally agree.

Ditto.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
The White Man's Burden 2

?

BaliBabyDoc, We havent gone into saudi because they are very prowestern. They sell to us first, Our contrators do all the drilling, and our ships carry all the crude to Lousiana and south Texas to be refined. There is no threat from the Royal Family, it's the poeple who hate us and our support for the royals whose 15,000 members control all ventures in SA though nepotisim.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
?

Heh, sad that people who argue so vehemently about this situation don't even know the source of all the trouble :Q

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Heh, sad that people who argue so vehemently about this situation don't even know the source of all the trouble :Q

Why don't you enlighten us. I could use the laugh.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: konichiwa
The White Man's Burden 2

?

BaliBabyDoc, We havent gone into saudi because they are very prowestern. They sell to us first, Our contrators do all the drilling, and our ships carry all the crude to Lousiana and south Texas to be refined. There is no threat from the Royal Family, it's the poeple who hate us and our support for the royals whose 15,000 members control all ventures in SA though nepotisim.

Wow, and you find that acceptable? Doesn't that kind of contradict the conservative mantra of "free the oppressed"?

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Heh, sad that people who argue so vehemently about this situation don't even know the source of all the trouble :Q

Why don't you enlighten us. I could use the laugh.

Rudyard Kipling...try google!

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: konichiwa
The White Man's Burden 2

?

BaliBabyDoc, We havent gone into saudi because they are very prowestern. They sell to us first, Our contrators do all the drilling, and our ships carry all the crude to Lousiana and south Texas to be refined. There is no threat from the Royal Family, it's the poeple who hate us and our support for the royals whose 15,000 members control all ventures in SA though nepotisim.

Wow, and you find that acceptable? Doesn't that kind of contradict the conservative mantra of "free the oppressed"?

I don't know I'm not conservative. I have advocated going in SA for years but no one with money is listening because they are a very cooperative regime.. But I do think the lifestyle we lead nessessitates the free flow of resources and a few men are hindering such activities, like saddam did. Why should'nt we take him out and be honest about our reasons for doing so?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Heh, sad that people who argue so vehemently about this situation don't even know the source of all the trouble :Q

Why don't you enlighten us. I could use the laugh.

Rudyard Kipling...try google!

Try explaining your comment instead of being an ass.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: konichiwa

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Heh, sad that people who argue so vehemently about this situation don't even know the source of all the trouble :Q

Why don't you enlighten us. I could use the laugh.

Rudyard Kipling...try google!

I tried that but his 19th century verbose it's too complicated my 21st century speek. Care to explain disect it like we did in english lit?

 

[konichiwa]

100 words or less, Rudyard Kipling's idea of the White Man's Burden was that we (Western Civilization, namely Great Britain) had the obligation to roam throughout the world, imposing our influence and will upon the "lower" peoples of second and third world countries. If they weren't Christian and modern, they were lesser beings and it was our job, as white men, to christianize and modernize them. And we did (or tried to), for the most part.

Now we're feeling the second backlash from it (the first being the wave of revolutionary wars in colonies across the world), this second against what you suggest, a neo-Colonialistic oil-fueled White Man's Burden.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
100 words or less, Rudyard Kipling's idea of the White Man's Burden was that we (Western Civilization, namely Great Britain) had the obligation to roam throughout the world, imposing our influence and will upon the "lower" peoples of second and third world countries. If they weren't Christian and modern, they were lesser beings and it was our job, as white men, to christianize and modernize them. And we did (or tried to), for the most part.

Now we're feeling the second backlash from it (the first being the wave of revolutionary wars in colonies across the world), this second against what you suggest, a neo-Colonialistic oil-fueled White Man's Burden.

Thank you. As I suspected it was good for a laugh.

 

[konichiwa]

Do you have anything to say about it? Or do you care to only laugh silently and hope that the rest of us believe that you have a convincing rebuttal and you're just too amused to share it?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
100 words or less, Rudyard Kipling's idea of the White Man's Burden was that we (Western Civilization, namely Great Britain) had the obligation to roam throughout the world, imposing our influence and will upon the "lower" peoples of second and third world countries. If they weren't Christian and modern, they were lesser beings and it was our job, as white men, to christianize and modernize them. And we did (or tried to), for the most part.

Now we're feeling the second backlash from it (the first being the wave of revolutionary wars in colonies across the world), this second against what you suggest, a neo-Colonialistic oil-fueled White Man's Burden.

It's not like we are stealing the oil, We will pay fair market value (good for us) and Iraq will have a greater distribution of those dollars (good for the majority of them). Seems quite different than what you discribe.

 

[konichiwa]

Yeah, we pay fair market value to our own companies (Haliburton) after we raze the country (Iraq)...

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Do you have anything to say about it? Or do you care to only laugh silently and hope that the rest of us believe that you have a convincing rebuttal and you're just too amused to share it?

No, I think I'll just continue to laugh at you and not care in the least what anyone believes.

 

[konichiwa]

Good plan.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Ultra Quiet, you may disagree with konichiwa's application of the White Man's Burden but it is consistent with Kipling's belief structure. You don't have to agree with the neo-con rant to understand they are intent upon spreading their beliefs by any means to the "lower" nation-states.

BaliBabyDoc, We havent gone into saudi because they are very prowestern.

That's the kind of rank hypocrisy that gets us into trouble. Suharto, the Shah, Marcos, and Saddam have more in common than bad taste in personal abodes. Everything western is NOT good . . . but certainly not bad, either. We should want all countries to have responsive and fair government. Instead we make it clear through our foreign policy that ANY government willing to do business with America is legitimate . . . enough.

Noriega, Saddam, and to some extent Marcos . . . started to believe their own hype and decided they could do well with or without America . . . alas they figured wrong. America has propped up far more dictatorships than democracies . . . that's our idea of nation building.

Here's an idea . . . why don't we try supporting democracy. If nations throughout the world could count on US foreign policy (hopefully that of US multinationals as well) to uphold the best of our "alleged" ethics/morals . . . MOST would give us whatever we want. But you cannot expect them to forget legitimate grievances. We could try the policy of admitting we've done some messed up stuff (just like everybody else), say we're sorry, and that those days are long gone. Or we could just invade the least friendly nation with large oil reserves and claim we are liberating the people from an oppressive dictator that we used to support.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: konichiwa
Do you have anything to say about it? Or do you care to only laugh silently and hope that the rest of us believe that you have a convincing rebuttal and you're just too amused to share it?

No, I think I'll just continue to laugh at you and not care in the least what anyone believes.

Once again your intelligence shines through.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Ultra Quiet, you may disagree with konichiwa's application of the White Man's Burden but it is consistent with Kipling's belief structure. You don't have to agree with the neo-con rant to understand they are intent upon spreading their beliefs by any means to the "lower" nation-states.

BaliBabyDoc, We havent gone into saudi because they are very prowestern.

That's the kind of rank hypocrisy that gets us into trouble. Suharto, the Shah, Marcos, and Saddam have more in common than bad taste in personal abodes. Everything western is NOT good . . . but certainly not bad, either. We should want all countries to have responsive and fair government. Instead we make it clear through our foreign policy that ANY government willing to do business with America is legitimate . . . enough.

Noriega, Saddam, and to some extent Marcos . . . started to believe their own hype and decided they could do well with or without America . . . alas they figured wrong. America has propped up far more dictatorships than democracies . . . that's our idea of nation building.

Here's an idea . . . why don't we try supporting democracy. If nations throughout the world could count on US foreign policy (hopefully that of US multinationals as well) to uphold the best of our "alleged" ethics/morals . . . MOST would give us whatever we want. But you cannot expect them to forget legitimate grievances. We could try the policy of admitting we've done some messed up stuff (just like everybody else), say we're sorry, and that those days are long gone. Or we could just invade the least friendly nation with large oil reserves and claim we are liberating the people from an oppressive dictator that we used to support.

Because it's not profitable to us for China to have UAW unions. We are hypocrites and it's all about the dollar and how much we can buy for it. Do you drive electric? only buy american union made goods or german, french, english, Japanese, swedish goods and opther real democracies? If not you are supporting the companies and goverments who do child labor, hold political prisoners, and have no regaurd for the common mans welfare. We shop primarly with a price in mind and holding one people hostage and underpaid is a benefit to us who have money to pay the price.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Speak for yourself . . . only shallow people think about "me, me, me" and "$, $, $". I buy a lot less clothing these days. My last three suits were all tailored in Hong Kong and Thailand . . . granted some arsehole baghandler stole my Thai suit somewhere between SFO and RDU.

I drive a Made in Nippon that gets 30+ highway while my wife drives 2 tons of American "Northstar" steel. But her next car will come from Sweden . . . a bastion of social welfare . . . albeit creeping right of center. As for my next vehicle as soon as I'm appropriately insured the wife says I can get a liter bike . . . and all bikes worth having come from Italy and Japan.

If we insisted on decent wages and working conditions overseas maybe American textile and furniture industries wouldn't be on their knees. I buy Made in the USA if it's the best product and a reasonable price. But I know the label is BS on many items including clothes and cars. Maybe your wardrobe is cut in half but more Americans have jobs . . .

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Speak for yourself . . . only shallow people think about "me, me, me" and "$, $, $". I buy a lot less clothing these days. My last three suits were all tailored in Hong Kong and Thailand . . . granted some arsehole baghandler stole my Thai suit somewhere between SFO and RDU.

I drive a Made in Nippon that gets 30+ highway while my wife drives 2 tons of American "Northstar" steel. But her next car will come from Sweden . . . a bastion of social welfare . . . albeit creeping right of center. As for my next vehicle as soon as I'm appropriately insured the wife says I can get a liter bike . . . and all bikes worth having come from Italy and Japan.

If we insisted on decent wages and working conditions overseas maybe American textile and furniture industries wouldn't be on their knees. I buy Made in the USA if it's the best product and a reasonable price. But I know the label is BS on many items including clothes and cars. Maybe your wardrobe is cut in half but more Americans have jobs . . .

You're still using oil, paying an oppesive saudi regime, unelected Agentina president and soon off the blood of several thousand Iraqis.

Stop driving or buy an electric . No, too costly, not convienient? And while your at it no plastic products or paints.

How we insist on these conditions is with our pocketbook, and most americans have made thier decision they don't care how some prisoners in china are treated (we barley care here) and shop for the cheapest eqivalent product. antiwar people are not willing to make the personel sacrfice it takes to bring about democracy since they and all americans are directly supporting the regimes or supporting companies who take advantage of these regimes pro-western production.