-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Human Shield?
- Thread starter mattjerom
- Start date
Oil Oil oil? If it was just oil there would be nothing wrong in protecting the world's economy from collapse because a madman in the area was blackmailing again, this time with a nuke. Poor people die first when economies collapse, not the rich, 'soaked in oil'.
Where did this "oil" theory come from? Earth First?
... .....
Pappy, using one's brains is still hard to do even with my 46 years of practise hitting bad notes.
munk
Where did this "oil" theory come from? Earth First?
... .....
Pappy, using one's brains is still hard to do even with my 46 years of practise hitting bad notes.
munk
Kendo
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2002
- Messages
- 245
where did this oil theory come from
that ones easy to answer munk its not a theory its a fact.
the british defence minister stated quite openly last week on the news
they were going to defend the oil reserves.
america has made no secret of the fact they have no qualms about going to war to protect the oil.in fact it is on the public record.
of course they also state that it is to protect against terrorisam.
which i totaly agree with, who wants iraq to have nukes to throw at us ? NOT ME.
and when it comes down to it what better act of terrorisam would there be than to wreck dozens of countrys economys by controling the oil. IT WOULD BE A FRIGHTENING SCENERIO SO I SAY GET ON WITH IT.
but where will it end korea is going to be next, they have openly stated there intention to produce nuclear weapons, AND AGAIN THE ALLIES HAVE OPENLY STATED THEY WILL NOT PERMIT THIS, AND KOREA IS NEXT AFTER IRAQ.
oh for the good ol days when disputes were settled with the sword.
at least you could still run for the hills an hide when you had had enuff, where do you run now with a bloody great mushroom cloud after you.
that ones easy to answer munk its not a theory its a fact.
the british defence minister stated quite openly last week on the news
they were going to defend the oil reserves.
america has made no secret of the fact they have no qualms about going to war to protect the oil.in fact it is on the public record.
of course they also state that it is to protect against terrorisam.
which i totaly agree with, who wants iraq to have nukes to throw at us ? NOT ME.
and when it comes down to it what better act of terrorisam would there be than to wreck dozens of countrys economys by controling the oil. IT WOULD BE A FRIGHTENING SCENERIO SO I SAY GET ON WITH IT.
but where will it end korea is going to be next, they have openly stated there intention to produce nuclear weapons, AND AGAIN THE ALLIES HAVE OPENLY STATED THEY WILL NOT PERMIT THIS, AND KOREA IS NEXT AFTER IRAQ.
oh for the good ol days when disputes were settled with the sword.
at least you could still run for the hills an hide when you had had enuff, where do you run now with a bloody great mushroom cloud after you.
- Joined
- May 30, 2002
- Messages
- 374
The oil theory did not come from Earth First.
I usually have dinner at university. I then end up eating with friends, friends of friends, occational new acquintances and so on. In that way dinner turns out to be quite interesting because you get to talk a variation of people, from capitalists to socialists and many other kinds of -ists. Lately I have been dining with some capitalists a lot. They want a war but they are unpleased about the rethorics Bush puts behind it. They wish him to say openly that it is about oil.
"So you are in favour of a war for oil?", I asked them.
"Sure", one of them told me, and continued; "The world functions like this: The-Have-Muchs shall gradually take from The-Have-Not-So-Muchs and acquire more and more of the resources that we together put in circulation into our systems. That goes for internal national political systems as well as external international system of order/disorder."
I just nodded to him across the table, with my mouth too full of food to comment, just to give him my understandingly "I see". And then I asked if that wasn't kind of wrong and cynical somehow (just a simple and intuitive question). Then I was explained that he/they couldn't care less. As long as The-Have-Muchs don't have to suffer then it was ok with him, after all, it is the Have-Not-So-Muchs amongst ourselves who have to take the risks anyway (as soldiers) and not him and me, he told me. And then we continued having our dinners together and didn't talk more about it.
The people I discuss such things with are very honest and we all speak our minds with noone ever getting upset. If someone says something that other people might see as completely horrible then we just say "ok" and don't get all emotional about it as it would ruin the talk. It just has to be that way when we all are so different in our opinions.
Anyway, my point was, not Earth First I think. Right wingers and fully fledged capitalists I meet here tell me it is for oil, and they like it.
I think Kendo is posting from the same place as I am posting from: the world outside USA. That's why our perception is oil oriented.
I usually have dinner at university. I then end up eating with friends, friends of friends, occational new acquintances and so on. In that way dinner turns out to be quite interesting because you get to talk a variation of people, from capitalists to socialists and many other kinds of -ists. Lately I have been dining with some capitalists a lot. They want a war but they are unpleased about the rethorics Bush puts behind it. They wish him to say openly that it is about oil.
"So you are in favour of a war for oil?", I asked them.
"Sure", one of them told me, and continued; "The world functions like this: The-Have-Muchs shall gradually take from The-Have-Not-So-Muchs and acquire more and more of the resources that we together put in circulation into our systems. That goes for internal national political systems as well as external international system of order/disorder."
I just nodded to him across the table, with my mouth too full of food to comment, just to give him my understandingly "I see". And then I asked if that wasn't kind of wrong and cynical somehow (just a simple and intuitive question). Then I was explained that he/they couldn't care less. As long as The-Have-Muchs don't have to suffer then it was ok with him, after all, it is the Have-Not-So-Muchs amongst ourselves who have to take the risks anyway (as soldiers) and not him and me, he told me. And then we continued having our dinners together and didn't talk more about it.
The people I discuss such things with are very honest and we all speak our minds with noone ever getting upset. If someone says something that other people might see as completely horrible then we just say "ok" and don't get all emotional about it as it would ruin the talk. It just has to be that way when we all are so different in our opinions.
Anyway, my point was, not Earth First I think. Right wingers and fully fledged capitalists I meet here tell me it is for oil, and they like it.
I think Kendo is posting from the same place as I am posting from: the world outside USA. That's why our perception is oil oriented.
IT'S NOT ABOUT OIL. Sheesh. Oil is a factor but not the main issue. Tnink about it.
The US is STOPPING Iraq from selling its oil. Iraq wants to sell more oil. What will it do with its oil? Will it eat it? Iraq has to sell its oil to be a power, and that applies no matter who is in power. It cannot afford to stop the flow. And it would not be able to unduly influence the price because 1: it does not dominate OPEC and world production; 2) even if it did, as OPEC found out, it can only push the Western economies so far before they begin to destroy the economic golden egg that buys their oil and keeps them in power.
It's not about oil because whomever is rhe regime in power in Iraq, sadaam or gladaam, they'll sell as much oil as they can to the West and the price will be within a relatively narrow range.
The US is STOPPING Iraq from selling its oil. Iraq wants to sell more oil. What will it do with its oil? Will it eat it? Iraq has to sell its oil to be a power, and that applies no matter who is in power. It cannot afford to stop the flow. And it would not be able to unduly influence the price because 1: it does not dominate OPEC and world production; 2) even if it did, as OPEC found out, it can only push the Western economies so far before they begin to destroy the economic golden egg that buys their oil and keeps them in power.
It's not about oil because whomever is rhe regime in power in Iraq, sadaam or gladaam, they'll sell as much oil as they can to the West and the price will be within a relatively narrow range.
I'll have to make a note that visitors to Eikerang's dinner table hold the key to global politics, being as how they are outside the US and therefore possess more insight.
I'll will say this one more time:
If it was just about oil? So what? A blackmailed global economy hurts the global poor first. But it is not just about oil. People who think it just about oil are living in pre 9-11 reality. How many hits do you think New York, or London, or pick your own can take before we have an economic crisis unprecedented for a hundred years, maybe for 300?
munk
I'll will say this one more time:
If it was just about oil? So what? A blackmailed global economy hurts the global poor first. But it is not just about oil. People who think it just about oil are living in pre 9-11 reality. How many hits do you think New York, or London, or pick your own can take before we have an economic crisis unprecedented for a hundred years, maybe for 300?
munk
- Joined
- May 30, 2002
- Messages
- 374
Sarcasm from you Munk?
I never posted with sarcasm. I don't do that as it is counterproductive to a good talk.
My entire point was that capitalists (or free marketists) want the oil on Western hands.
(I also watched 60 Minutes where an American oil man told that oil companies from USA and Europe will benefit after the coming war when they move in to pump up the Iraqi oil.)
The point I made about the differing perceptions in USA and in the world outside USA is an interesting one to consider for all of us since it should raise a thought for us all (on both sides of the Atlantic). It should cause us to say:"So what is your media saying about it all?", and have an exchange of how popular opinion is being shaped in both our respective parts of the world. This is a unique opportunity for us if you ask me, and this suggestion was not meant for you to write down on a note.
Since when did we (The West) care about "those people"? "They" were never a prime reason for doing anything at our own expanse.
The events in USA (9-11), Indonesia, Kenya and Yemen have not been successfully linked to Iraq. The terrorists of 9-11 have been linked to Saudi Arabia and not Iraq. Shouldn't the Saudis be dealt with instead then?
Edited to add:
I should add that I have no particular position in this matter. I don't have a full perspective of the situation yet. So for my own part I am merely trying to uphold a thesis for why war on Iraq should be done and an anti-thesis for why it should not be done.
It depends on who I talk to what point of view I tend to espouse just to see if I can get some useful input.
Exactly. That's why you're wrong. Exactly how will an invasion of Iraq and a regime change put oil "on Western hands"? Please explain exactly, without sloganeering but with economic arguments and evidence, how a regime change, a fortiori a democratisation, will change the basic facts that Iraq must sell oil and that Iraq alone cannot determine the quantum or price over an extended period of time, no matter whose "hands" the oil is "on". And please explain how the west's desire for more and therefore cheaper oil out of Iraq could be the reason for the war if Sadaam himself wants to produce more oil and it's the West that has been stopping him?
What are 'western hands"? What nonsense. We are all so linked these distinctions are only good for US vs Them ideologues. The major French Paper reported Iraq largely in compliance during Blitz's release Monday of major non compliance- is that the free press you mean? Eikerverang, it is you who propose being outside the US gives you insight. Sarcasm would seem very indicated.
We don't need a link to Al Queda. We have a madman in the most important economic geography in the world. Post 9-11 world spelled the end of taking chances on Saddams. We know he trains and gives money to Palistinian Terrorists. Other data will come out. Al Queda is reportedly now in Northern Iraq injuring the Kurds.
What half, or even all of Europe believes does not concern me at present. In the abstract, if the global culture war continues in the current fashion, that PC half of Europe will have disarmed all civilian populations. I suspect the end will occur about then- too late for negotiation with terrorists. We establish a precedent now or die.
My opinion only. Thank God Tony Blair and George Bush share it. Iraq first, the rest will follow. We're saving your future whether you know this or not, so that little Eikerangs in Universities all across the globe can debate the evil of oil. I won't even mind taking the rap of 'badguy'. Leaders make hard decisions. France and the rest can follow or not.
munk
We don't need a link to Al Queda. We have a madman in the most important economic geography in the world. Post 9-11 world spelled the end of taking chances on Saddams. We know he trains and gives money to Palistinian Terrorists. Other data will come out. Al Queda is reportedly now in Northern Iraq injuring the Kurds.
What half, or even all of Europe believes does not concern me at present. In the abstract, if the global culture war continues in the current fashion, that PC half of Europe will have disarmed all civilian populations. I suspect the end will occur about then- too late for negotiation with terrorists. We establish a precedent now or die.
My opinion only. Thank God Tony Blair and George Bush share it. Iraq first, the rest will follow. We're saving your future whether you know this or not, so that little Eikerangs in Universities all across the globe can debate the evil of oil. I won't even mind taking the rap of 'badguy'. Leaders make hard decisions. France and the rest can follow or not.
munk
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2001
- Messages
- 2,632
I am 22; I was a kid when the last little trip to "the sandbox" happened. Feel free to correct me.
From what I understand from the information that I was given by my ROTC instructors here at college, it is Europe who suffers from a War in the Mid East. (I am speaking financially and not the guys on the ground.)
The United States has several other places to get oil besides the Mid East that are closer. Argentina, Rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico (however limited), and while we are paying $1.75 over here for "regular" stuff while the bullets fly, Europe is paying $8-9 instead of their normal $3-5, American Dollars that is.
America does not really need the oil that Iraq has, nor does Europe, the UN has been limiting what Iraq could sell for the past 10 years. The other countries in the Mid East can provide Europe with the oil they need, and it is looking like nations of the former Soviet Union will be in the oil biz soon.
I cannot deny that this war has nothing to do with oil, yet I think what all this is about is the ability of other Mid East countries to exist without being blackmailed or threatened by Saddam and Weapons of Mass Destruction. (Look at what North Korea is doing with the US right now.)
Saddam has used such weapons in the past. If the heat wasnt on him, he would continue to use them against his own people, and invade other countries with the aid of those same weapons. This is about the independence of other countries and the prevention of future atrocities.
From what I understand from the information that I was given by my ROTC instructors here at college, it is Europe who suffers from a War in the Mid East. (I am speaking financially and not the guys on the ground.)
The United States has several other places to get oil besides the Mid East that are closer. Argentina, Rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico (however limited), and while we are paying $1.75 over here for "regular" stuff while the bullets fly, Europe is paying $8-9 instead of their normal $3-5, American Dollars that is.
America does not really need the oil that Iraq has, nor does Europe, the UN has been limiting what Iraq could sell for the past 10 years. The other countries in the Mid East can provide Europe with the oil they need, and it is looking like nations of the former Soviet Union will be in the oil biz soon.
I cannot deny that this war has nothing to do with oil, yet I think what all this is about is the ability of other Mid East countries to exist without being blackmailed or threatened by Saddam and Weapons of Mass Destruction. (Look at what North Korea is doing with the US right now.)
Saddam has used such weapons in the past. If the heat wasnt on him, he would continue to use them against his own people, and invade other countries with the aid of those same weapons. This is about the independence of other countries and the prevention of future atrocities.
There is the possibility that a new regime would cancel the contracts for oil production or licenses and leases from existing interests to american interests ie Bush's supporters, or that on renewal the contracts would go to them. That is a different and quite disturbing possibility than the nonsense about westsern interests and securing production or cheaper prices. I've asked for details on another thread. But until I see details, it's speculation and nonsense too.
Contracts, licenses and leases generally are not terminable at will. If they were, the US wouldn't have a base in Cuba and Hong kong would have been taken over by the Chinese a long, long time ago. But if they are all short term and up for renewal, a cynic might have to concede that allocating them to certain interests could be a bigger factor...
Contracts, licenses and leases generally are not terminable at will. If they were, the US wouldn't have a base in Cuba and Hong kong would have been taken over by the Chinese a long, long time ago. But if they are all short term and up for renewal, a cynic might have to concede that allocating them to certain interests could be a bigger factor...
I believe it was the French Ambassador who was worried about French interests if the US went in to Iraq. What would France get? Seemed to be the complaint. The US does not imperialize nations.
I have perversely wondered if we shouldn't be allowed to recoup part of the financial cost of Iraq with oil....what a precedent.
munk
I have perversely wondered if we shouldn't be allowed to recoup part of the financial cost of Iraq with oil....what a precedent.
munk
not2sharp
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 1999
- Messages
- 20,448
In order to be an effective human shield, you have to be able to position yourself at a specific a valuable target, and inform us of when you are precisely going to be there, and make sure that someone is available to record and publish your demise. We are not going to be able to see the passport in your pocket as we are zooming by at 20,000 feet. None of these "human shields" have done that. I have not heard anyone say that they are going to camp out on the so & so bridge commencing on ##/##/## to await the expected attack.
So I suspect that these folks are merely con artist. They make some vague noises, get tremendous amounts of free press, and collect contributions from people with anti-American sentiments. One group was leaving by bus and planning a road trip through parts of Europe to collect more recruits (read $$$$$). They will probably get there long after the war is over.
Dumb? Nope. Crooked? Yup.
I wish I had thought of it first. Then again, I would need to have a couple of scruples knocked lose.
n2s
So I suspect that these folks are merely con artist. They make some vague noises, get tremendous amounts of free press, and collect contributions from people with anti-American sentiments. One group was leaving by bus and planning a road trip through parts of Europe to collect more recruits (read $$$$$). They will probably get there long after the war is over.
Dumb? Nope. Crooked? Yup.
I wish I had thought of it first. Then again, I would need to have a couple of scruples knocked lose.
n2s
Eikverang, if this were a fair universe, we would deal with the Saudis. Iraq going down is moving a large way towards dealing with the Saudis. The shockwaves will make it far easier to hopefully encourage a revolution in Iran and self reflection in others.
munk
munk
If it was just about oil? So what? A blackmailed global economy hurts the global poor first. munk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when did we (The West) care about "those people"? "They" were never a prime reason for doing anything at our own expanse. -Eikverang
This is the kind of opinion that reveals naivete. Which world leader in the last 2000 years has done the most for the most people? Britain? Spain? France? Where do you think markets come from, or indoor plumbing? Who funded disease erradication the last 50 years?
munk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when did we (The West) care about "those people"? "They" were never a prime reason for doing anything at our own expanse. -Eikverang
This is the kind of opinion that reveals naivete. Which world leader in the last 2000 years has done the most for the most people? Britain? Spain? France? Where do you think markets come from, or indoor plumbing? Who funded disease erradication the last 50 years?
munk
not2sharp
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 1999
- Messages
- 20,448
"I have perversely wondered if we shouldn't be allowed to recoup part of the financial cost of Iraq with oil....what a precedent."
France has never had a problem with reparations. The Versailles treaty ending WWI was so harsh that it led to the rise of Hitler and WWII. Among other things, the British, but mostly the French, demanded and received virtually every movable asset within Germany (Especially almost all German flag ships and most of the existing railroad moving stock). The move destroyed the German Economy. I believe the US will disappoint France and behaive much more magnanimously.
n2s
France has never had a problem with reparations. The Versailles treaty ending WWI was so harsh that it led to the rise of Hitler and WWII. Among other things, the British, but mostly the French, demanded and received virtually every movable asset within Germany (Especially almost all German flag ships and most of the existing railroad moving stock). The move destroyed the German Economy. I believe the US will disappoint France and behaive much more magnanimously.
n2s
- Joined
- Mar 5, 1999
- Messages
- 34,096
Interesting discourse.
There's a few things to remember when throwing rocks. Japan, Germany, and a few other countries around the world could have been today US territory or states if the US was truly imperialistic. But the US didn't play it that way. They spent billions to set up democratic governments and rebuild the countries that were conquered during WWII. One of the reasons Japan's auto industry did better than ours was because their factories had new tooling and ours were using pre WWII tooling. Ironic when you consider spoils of war and right of conquest.
And there wouldn't be any oil in the mideast if the US oil industry hadn't developed it at considerable expense only to see it "nationalized."
I'll be the first to admit that our foreign policy is flawed and we make mistakes but I'll also be the first to say to those who criticize us so vehemently to take a look at what we've done and what we do. I may be biased but it looks like we do more stuff right than wrong.
There's a few things to remember when throwing rocks. Japan, Germany, and a few other countries around the world could have been today US territory or states if the US was truly imperialistic. But the US didn't play it that way. They spent billions to set up democratic governments and rebuild the countries that were conquered during WWII. One of the reasons Japan's auto industry did better than ours was because their factories had new tooling and ours were using pre WWII tooling. Ironic when you consider spoils of war and right of conquest.
And there wouldn't be any oil in the mideast if the US oil industry hadn't developed it at considerable expense only to see it "nationalized."
I'll be the first to admit that our foreign policy is flawed and we make mistakes but I'll also be the first to say to those who criticize us so vehemently to take a look at what we've done and what we do. I may be biased but it looks like we do more stuff right than wrong.
- Joined
- May 16, 2002
- Messages
- 4,437
If I were to put myself at the table with your capitalist buddies, I'd have to espouse my experiences and beliefs on capitalism. Id introduce myself, and begin:
"Pardon me, but Capitalism has little to do in practice and operations with the "Have and have not" theory you folks are passing off as capitalism."
I would chew my food, then say::
"I recommend that you review the theory of Lassiez Faire Capitalism , which is pure capitalism. It is still in practice today in the US. It is the cornerstone of the US industries even today. " [I cannot even begin to discuss capitalism in this limited space, so I won't. Also, Ayn Rand's views on capitalism are okay and worth checking out as well, but I ain't no Rand-droid.]
"The down side of any governmental system is there will always be waste and always be greed. The greedy wreck it for Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Monarchies, Dictatorships, etc. Let's not blame greed and taking stuff from others who cannot defend themselves with Capitalism, please."
And then I would swallow, realizing I've been talking with a full mouth of lutefisk.
I had a communist buddy in colege. I walked up to him one day and said -- so you're a Communist, right? He says Yep. I say, hey, can I have our money outta that wallet in yer pocket?
Politely, Eik, I'd say there's some fine points on Capitalism that they might wanna brush up on.
Thanks fer the stimluating post, Eik!
Keith
"Pardon me, but Capitalism has little to do in practice and operations with the "Have and have not" theory you folks are passing off as capitalism."
I would chew my food, then say::
"I recommend that you review the theory of Lassiez Faire Capitalism , which is pure capitalism. It is still in practice today in the US. It is the cornerstone of the US industries even today. " [I cannot even begin to discuss capitalism in this limited space, so I won't. Also, Ayn Rand's views on capitalism are okay and worth checking out as well, but I ain't no Rand-droid.]
"The down side of any governmental system is there will always be waste and always be greed. The greedy wreck it for Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Monarchies, Dictatorships, etc. Let's not blame greed and taking stuff from others who cannot defend themselves with Capitalism, please."
And then I would swallow, realizing I've been talking with a full mouth of lutefisk.
I had a communist buddy in colege. I walked up to him one day and said -- so you're a Communist, right? He says Yep. I say, hey, can I have our money outta that wallet in yer pocket?
Politely, Eik, I'd say there's some fine points on Capitalism that they might wanna brush up on.
Thanks fer the stimluating post, Eik!
Keith
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2000
- Messages
- 1,522
I have to say SamuraiDave makes great points that are often overlooked in debate over the Iraqi problem. Regional stability is always the prime reason we ever get involved in conflicts, such as Bosnia, Korea, etc... Though unfortunately its often the reason we dont get involved as well (Sierra Leone, Rwanda, etc...). One country terrorizing its people doesnt figure much on policy issues, we let the Khmer Rouge (sp?) exist in a vacuum in Cambodia while it killed millions of its own, its when it starts to menace other countries in the region, particularly ones we have treaties with (such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, etc...) that things start getting complicated and eyebrows are lifted. Which in turn affects other allies dependent on them, particularly Europenan concerns (which is why we ally ourselves with who we do in the Middle East in the first place). So I guess in a roundabout way you can say economics influence things, but not in the sense of the US wanting Middle Eastern oil, rather allies of the US (Europe) needing regional stability in the area to maintain their own economies. If anything the only real disagreement is over methodology, cost vs benefit ratio, and not the reasons for. Anyways, Im tired of the argument European voices are outside the US, and therefor they can properly look at 2nd (well I guess thats a misnomer now) and 3rd world issues with a un-biased eye. I can say with fair certainty that those in 2nd and 3rd world arent necessarily so quick to agree. Kinda like Senators who argue that theyre against the establishment, when hell they are the establishment. No one is clean in this modern world, and we're all connected one way or the other. History is not a static neutral event, but a process that made the current reality. So one cant blade the present on the present. Hmm here I go with another analogy (bad habit) but one cant whine about the current situation only because of weapons of mass destruction/oil/etc..., its like blaming a heart attack on last nights dinner (when its really the years of cholestoral that built up). Sorry if this dont make much sense, but I dont like getting on politics on written forums.