More Oil for United States

[Texan]

MAPOU, Haiti (AP) -- Heavy rains threatened the waterlogged southern border of Haiti and Dominican Republic even as rescue workers rushed Saturday to collect decomposing bodies and reach villagers cut off days ago when torrents and mudslides buried entire communities.

Waters are expected to rise along with the official toll of about 1,000 dead in what is being called "one of the worst natural disasters to hit the Caribbean," according to Secretary-General Cesar Gaviria of the Organization of American States.

U.S.-led troops including Marines, Canadians and Chileans on Saturday continued ferrying food, medicine, plastic sheeting for shelter and aid workers by helicopter to the worst-hit Haitian towns of Mapou and Fond Verrettes.
____________________________________________________

I did not realize that Haiti had oil. I hope this will help bring down fuel prices.

[Deepflow]

i dunno, something about billy goats gruff and a bridge, cant remember much.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Haiti isn't lead by an EVIL DICTATOR WHO'S THREATENING THE WORLD! either.

See, prowar and antiwar positions can both be made to look bad if you willfully misinterpret them!

[Texan]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Haiti isn't lead by an EVIL DICTATOR WHO'S THREATENING THE WORLD! either.

Not now, anyway.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Texan

Not now, anyway.

They have sheep of mass destruction you know.

[Texan]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

They have sheep of mass destruction you know.

Their methane output is causing global warming.

[wu_trax]

if you turn a country more or less into a colony (like it happened with all of central america) offering some help is the least you could do.

[Texan]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

if you turn a country more or less into a colony (like it happened with all of central america) offering some help is the least you could do.

if you (meaning European governments I assume) turn a country more or less into a colony (like it happened with all of central america) offering some help is the least you could do.

Or do you mean that the United States, Chile and Canada turned most of Central America into pseudo-colonies. Strange how the people speak mostly Spanish and Portugese in South America, isn't it?

[Dante Hicks]

I don't quite get what you're talking about here Texan.

I don't think anyone said every single thing the US Army do is for oil. That wouldn't be very practical aside from anything else. It's quite possible to act for selfish reasons in one case, and "altruistic" in another.

Plus, wu_trax is talking about the relationship the US has had with Haiti over the last 50 years. The language spoken isn't really relevent.

[wu_trax]

im talking about today, not about 500 years ago.

(besides, they speak french in haiti)

[JammyJim]

Originally Posted by Texan

if you (meaning European governments I assume) turn a country more or less into a colony (like it happened with all of central america) offering some help is the least you could do.

Or do you mean that the United States, Chile and Canada turned most of Central America into pseudo-colonies. Strange how the people speak mostly Spanish and Portugese in South America, isn't it?

Its funny how you trying to prove a point that noone really cares about.


however heres something for you to understand :


America imposes its economic will on its southern neighbours through american controlled world bank and IMF policies demanding restructuring of the economy etc so that they can get aid.

It has also actively funded insurgency operations (Reagan anyone?) illegally and has helped in the toppling of various governments by funding rebels.


As another side point....when Britain ruled half the world and had the largest empire in the history of mankind. Most of its colonies continued to speak their native languages.

[JammyJim]

btw.


how does this make the iraq thing right?

By helping some other country thats been battered by the elements without any concern for oil interests this somehow proves the US is in iraq for humanitarian reasons?

http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm

read

its written by Human Rights Watch.
Theyre fairly well known. (as in everyone knows about them) and respected. The guiy whos writing is one of their top men.

[JonnyBGood]

Anecdotal evidence concerning how Saddam Hussein liked one of his kids and implication that this makes any other crimes committed "okay".





Hold on, wrong thread. Sorry guys!

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

America imposes its economic will on its southern neighbours through american controlled world bank and IMF policies demanding restructuring of the economy etc so that they can get aid.

tee hee

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

America imposes its economic will on its southern neighbours through american controlled world bank and IMF policies demanding restructuring of the economy etc so that they can get aid.

Yes, how rude of us to put conditions on foreign aid! We should just go back to giving them bags of cash--95% of which ends up in El Presidente's Swiss bank account.

[Snurx]

Woah, and it does not now? And as far as i can remeber, foregin "aid" has always been deeply conditioned, ie "give us all your resources", "kill that communist leader" or "dude, we need your bananas".

[Proteus]

I remember when pro-US arguments on these forums made some form of sense. Bring back Sandsnake.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Yes, how rude of us to put conditions on foreign aid!

I'm pretty sure if your conditions were always something along the lines of "x% should be spent on programmes to reduce infant mortality, x% should be spent on employment programmes, x% on vaccination programmes, etc" no-one would mind.

[JammyJim]

I supposed things like removal of all protectionism.
Opening up of markets and reduction of government involvment in fledgling industry is good stuff?

Economic liberalisation harms most poorer countries. Instead of their industry being protected from cheap foreign competition its opened up and systematically destroyed ensuring that it becomes reliant on western products and services.


Oh and countries have to cut their budget deficit. To do this they have to cut expenditure in all areas of spending and in most cases increase taxes.


The IMF and World Bank have operated effectively to create new markets for american products whilst destroying any hope of those nations creating their own competitive markets.

its absurd.

Its 'great' in theory but the Washington Consensus has come under fire from nearly all corners of the world so im not the only one who thinks the IMF is not quite as 'ace' as it makes out.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Yes, how rude of us to put conditions on foreign aid! We should just go back to giving them bags of cash--95% of which ends up in El Presidente's Swiss bank account.

i always thought that are your conditions. the other 5% are used to torture and/or kill those evil red socialists (or any other form of non-pro-us-opposition), who dont want the own country to be run by us-companies.

[JammyJim]

however this is all getting away from the original point.


america doesnt always use its military to gain oil.


OMFG I HAD NO IDEA

[Hicks]

This thread made me laugh at the absurdity, duh is all i can say.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Snurx

Woah, and it does not now?

Probably. Which is as good an argument for eliminating foreign aid altogether.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm pretty sure if your conditions were always something along the lines of "x% should be spent on programmes to reduce infant mortality, x% should be spent on employment programmes, x% on vaccination programmes, etc" no-one would mind.

Sounds a bit like: 'give us money to treat the symptoms but don't dare tell us how to fix the problems.'

[Texan]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

however this is all getting away from the original point.


america doesnt always use its military to gain oil.


OMFG I HAD NO IDEA

For 15 years the United States has been involved in wars to steal oil, spent billions of dollars, and has not yet successfully acquired a single oil field. It's time the United States stopped pussyfooting around wasting taxpayer money. The United States has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Steal those oil fields. The taxpayers should at least get some free oil for all they money they have put out.

[wu_trax]

the freer the market the freer the people

[JammyJim]

Originally Posted by Texan

For 15 years the United States has been involved in wars to steal oil, spent billions of dollars, and has not yet successfully acquired a single oil field. It's time the United States stopped pussyfooting around wasting taxpayer money. The United States has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Steal those oil fields. The taxpayers should at least get some free oil for all they money they have put out.

thats correct.


however youve overlooked a 'minor' issue.


that being economic imperialism.


you dont have to take land to control it.

just out of interest have you studied any political books of worth?
ever?

[Texan]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

just out of interest have you studied any political books of worth?
ever?

I've read about 10 university text books related to political science in the last few years; however, I note that you caveat your question with the qualifier "of worth." Now you can say the books I have read have no worth since the authors may or may not agree with your political beliefs. Let's see:

Games Nations Play
European Politics Reconsidered
Politics in Western Europe
European Democracies
The Arabs in History
The Arab World Today
Islam and Democracy
The Case for Israel
What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response

I also read MEMRI every day, and I get information from the Early Bird -- an archive of articles related to U.S. national defense from English language newspapers, radio and TV from around the world.

One of the failings of the people on this forum is that they assume anyone who does not agree with their political beliefs is obviously an idiot who only gets information from Fox News and maybe local newspapers.

Example: If I think the Israelis are good and the Palestinians are bad, I may be wrong, but that does not mean I have never read anything about the subject. Recently a forum poster assumed that I knew nothing about the Middle East. His information was based on the fact that I posted an article from NRO, and I'm from Texas. That's not really much information on which to base an opinion about me.

Bottom line: You do not agree with my political beliefs, therefore you are an ill-informed idiot.

That's why the discussions on this forum have gone downhill lately. Nobody likes being shouted down and called an idiot because of their political beliefs.

[JammyJim]

lets see :

Your original point rested upon the following premise : One act of the American military helping people without interest in oil or taking over the country means that america isnt always war mongering for its own interests or not sending its military under false pretences to countries which dont want its involvement.

Yes. Fair enough. Helping other nations because of national tradgedy is good etc. However these acts of "kindness" do not in any way shape or form detract from the fact that the US Military is, and has historically, been engaged in securing oil/influence either through direct military action, the threat of military action or economic sanctions or the use of an ally in the region.

Your original point was ill founded and based on nothing. It was childish.

This is why i wondered what you were reading. Not because i could go 'ho ho ho' you clearly dont read but because i was interested as to what you read and where you formed your views from.

the 'of worth' comment.... I would not consider someone like Bill o Reilly as someone to read of 'worth'. Yes he has brought out a book. Yes its succesful. However it has about as much useful content as a happy meal without a toy.


Due to the university i attend i get to hear lectures from some of the leading minds in the world about the subject we are discussing. Most if not all have been published and are required reading in every major political institution the world over and i was wondering if youd read anything theyd said or whether youd read things which are required reading for the courses i take.



So far nothing youve said on this forum has made a) any sense or b) been of any value arguement wise.

I have two broad reasons why i believe this...

1.
This post was very much a 'look at how good we are.....we dont always do bad things....hahahaha you europeans who critisise us are wrong hahaah'

Its like a child pointing to the fact theyve done their homework after theyd just grafitied the wall of a church. One good deed does not overshadow all the other things that take place.

2. Other threads have been backed up with little/no real facts or information.


Therefore i can only summise that you have either read very little or what you have read has been slanted. Obviously if im wrong then i apologise. However i think im in agreement with pretty much every other poster who has read your threads that they are written with complete non-acknowledgment of any real evidence and are based upon the premise of American patriotism and nationalism clouding the realities of the world.



[ill edit this once ive posted because its a quick reply and the box is tiny]

[Texan]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

Due to the university i attend i get to hear lectures from some of the leading minds in the world about the subject we are discussing. Most if not all have been published and are required reading in every major political institution the world over and i was wondering if youd read anything theyd said or whether youd read things which are required reading for the courses i take.
<cut>
Therefore i can only summise that you have either read very little or what you have read has been slanted.

If what you are reading is in any way similiar to what university students in the United States are reading, then your reading material is grossly slanted away from the truth. In most U.S. universities if you're anti-white, you can get all the time to stage protests that you want. If you're anti-black, you can get kicked out of school for expressing your beliefs. Same with Anti-Israel vs. Anti-Palestinian.

As for facts, I've been reading this forum for a long time, and I have not noticed facts getting in the way of people's opinions. Why single me out to provide facts.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Sounds a bit like: 'give us money to treat the symptoms but don't dare tell us how to fix the problems.'

If the US followed the advice it gave out to others it'd probably be more acceptable.

[JammyJim]

Originally Posted by Texan

If what you are reading is in any way similiar to what university students in the United States are reading, then your reading material is grossly slanted away from the truth. In most U.S. universities if you're anti-white, you can get all the time to stage protests that you want. If you're anti-black, you can get kicked out of school for expressing your beliefs. Same with Anti-Israel vs. Anti-Palestinian.

As for facts, I've been reading this forum for a long time, and I have not noticed facts getting in the way of people's opinions. Why single me out to provide facts.

Our professors are primarily English school thinkers. However the education we recieve is fairly unbiased. We are encouraged to read books and papers showing different points of view from well respected authors on both sides of the fence.

http://www.aber.ac.uk/interpol/home.html

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If the US followed the advice it gave out to others it'd probably be more acceptable.

No doubt; but then we're not the ones wanting the aid.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Texan

For 15 years the United States has been involved in wars to steal oil, spent billions of dollars, and has not yet successfully acquired a single oil field. It's time the United States stopped pussyfooting around wasting taxpayer money. The United States has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Steal those oil fields. The taxpayers should at least get some free oil for all they money they have put out.

why do people insist on believing that these wars are fought to secure oil fields?

Start to realise that the american government which is run by a bunch of rich people does not care for the average joe in your country. Why would they care for an obese, undereducated ignorant society?

anti-americanism aside... here is the real issue.

America does not really want to secure oil fields. This would be more than blatent, and would win them even more enemies than they already have.

Plus the return on oil isnt projected to be as great as the cost of the war in iraq. So the american government can argue that they're fighting for moral reasons and security reasons.

Picture this:

i) Rich members of the American government (and we know they're rich and powerful - ignoring this is naive).

ii) Subservient American military who will do anything that their government desires.

iii) A war that will cost AMERICANS TAX money. Not the rich members of the government, but the tax payers on whole.

Ok so the american government sends in troops under the precedence of morality and security. Iraq is occupied (a highly rich oil country). If America were to steal the oil fields it would look suspicious. Instead what these rich americans do is that they put in power, governments that favour these rich americans, and use these puppets to give out CONTRACTS for oil drilling to preferred partners.

Now remember Oil drilling is a HUGE profit maker. Absolutely huge. So as the americans are paying the tax bill, these rich oil industry owners with their new contracts get to earn billions in revenue. Saddam wouldnt have given iraq's oil fields so gallantly to American Contracters. Therefore replace him, and install people who will.

If you think this is just conspiracy spewing, do some reaseach on the before and after war pertaining to the oil contract handouts. You'll see that after the war - contracts starting to be handed back to the americans and british firms (mainly the 4 big ones who were excluded from drilling since 1972). These profits will be billions in the short run, trillions in the long run.

All this while the average joe is arguing under the veil that the governments are actually waging war for their nations. Do you think the rich and powerful actually care about peasants (us)?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

No doubt; but then we're not the ones wanting the aid.

Oh of course, but then it's clear why the US is being criticised. It's not surprising that people are dubious that you are trying to cure the "cause" of third world problems when you're advising them to adopt policies the US wouldn't wish adopted in it's own country.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

Yes. Fair enough. Helping other nations because of national tradgedy is good etc. However these acts of "kindness" do not in any way shape or form detract from the fact that the US Military is, and has historically, been engaged in securing oil/influence either through direct military action, the threat of military action or economic sanctions or the use of an ally in the region.

Why is this bad? The purpose of the US government, as dictated by the American constitution, is to protect the interests of the american people, not those located in other countries. The 'imposition' of open/semi-free markets on countries which are likely to pose a threat to america is most certainly in the interests of the united states, and it is also often in the long-term interest of those countries on the receiving end.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Why is this bad? The purpose of the US government, as dictated by the American constitution, is to protect the interests of the american people, not those located in other countries.

You've gotta be kidding. It's moral because it's in the constituion?

I'd say any system (or course of action) is "bad" when it starts with the presumption that one bunch of people are worthy of inclusion of your moral calculation while others are not.

The 'imposition' of open/semi-free markets on countries which are likely to pose a threat to america is most certainly in the interests of the united states

So that makes it OK then!

and it is also often in the interest of those countries on the receiving end.

Sometimes. Other times, not so much. But as you've already said the US Government aren't in the business of protecting the interests of people "located in other countries" so we should be wary of any advice, etc.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

You've gotta be kidding. It's moral because it's in the constituion?
I'd say any system (or course of action) is "bad" when it starts with the presumption that one bunch of people are worthy of inclusion of your moral calculation while others are not.

Most of what is in the consitution is moral, but obviously this is because the 2 sets intersect heavily, rather than as part of a casual relationship. The only responsibility the US government has towards other countries is to not use force against them, other than in self-defence (pre-emptive if necessary). You can argue about whether the US government has actually acted in accordance with this principle if you like, but the point that I was directly addressing was the suggestion that the US is somehow only justified in entering other countries to 'help' them.

[JammyJim]

The concept of Soverignty upon which international society has been based for several hundred years backs up my arguement nod.

without it the international system collapses into anarchy.

Even the United Nations Charter. It states that you cannot attack unless its in self defence or there is a threat to international peace and security.

Therefore any intervention or attack is unlawful in the eyes of some critics. 'Restrictionist vs counterrestrictionist'. however this arguement is predominatntly concerned with humanitarian intervention not pre-emptive self defence.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

The only responsibility the US government has towards other countries is to not use force against them.

I wouldn't agree with this. Depends on what you mean by "responsibility" of course, but I'd say that there is some moral duty to do no harm (not just use no force). If I advise you drink bleach to cure hiccups then I have not used force against you, but my behaviour can hardly be described as ethically sound. If I only agree to lend you much needed money on the proviso you drink bleach then my behaviour is even worse.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

The concept of Soverignty upon which international society has been based for several hundred years backs up my arguement nod.

Soverignity only exists if people are willing to play along with it - if it isn't in the interests of the US to do so, there's no reason why they should. In any case, your soverignity ends the instant you initiate force against another nation.

Even the United Nations Charter. It states that you cannot attack unless its in self defence or there is a threat to international peace and security.

Therefore any intervention or attack is unlawful in the eyes of some critics. 'Restrictionist vs counterrestrictionist'. however this arguement is predominatntly concerned with humanitarian intervention not pre-emptive self defence.

Noone cares about international law unless it suits them. Apparently the war in Iraq was illegal, but its not like anyone is going to do anything about it.

[JammyJim]

i take it your a realist then

heh

[Nodrog]

No, I'm an idealist.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If I advise you drink bleach to cure hiccups then I have not used force against you, but my behaviour can hardly be described as ethically sound. If I only agree to lend you much needed money on the proviso you drink bleach then my behaviour is even worse.

From a legal point of it would be acceptable; noone would be justified in taking forcible retaliation because of what you had done. I'd hesitate to say that you would even be morally responsible for any damage the person sufferred, unless you actually helped to create the situation which left them with no money. I'm not entirely sure however.

This isnt really relevant though, since encouraging countries to open their markets is hardly comparable to asking them to drink bleach.

[JammyJim]

ho ho.

incidently.
soverignty is respected because if it wasnt the UN would fall apart.
However it seems the US doesnt so maybe we will have a re-run of the league of nations in the next few years.
or maybe nothing will happen and the US will continue to do what its always done.

precisely whatever it wants.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

From a legal point of it would be acceptable; noone would be justified in taking forcible retaliation because of what you had done.

I'm not saying it'd be illegal. I'm saying it's not ethically desirable behaviour. Something being illegal does not make it immoral; the opposite is also true.

If you knock on my door and ask to use the phone because your car has broken down and your wife has been injured then me not helping you is hardly illegal, yet it's quite obviously a bit shitty. (let's presume I have several friends in my home all with guns, so I am not afraid, I just don't like helping Scottish people)

This isnt really relevant though, since encouraging countries to open their markets is hardly comparable to asking them to drink bleach.

In some instances it can do harm, which is the point. You seem to be trying to limit the moral calculation to purely US citizens, which is a bizarre restriction. It's like the people who aren't fazed by alleged abuses in Guatanamo Bay as "the constitution and bill of rights only apply to US citizens", etc.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm not saying it'd be illegal. I'm saying it's not ethically desirable behaviour. Something being illegal does not make it immoral; the opposite is also true.

What would be worse; offering help with an 'unethical' demand attached, or refusing to help entirely?

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

You seem to be trying to limit the moral calculation to purely US citizens, which is a bizarre restriction. It's like the people who aren't fazed by alleged abuses in Guatanamo Bay as "the constitution and bill of rights only apply to US citizens", etc.

But the consitution and bill of rights do only apply to US citizens

The US government has the same obligation towards citizens of other countries as any 2 citizens of a country would have towards each other in the absence of a government, namely the non-initiation of force, and not taking retaliation 'too far'.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

What would be worse; offering help with an 'unethical' demand attached, or refusing to help entirely?

The latter, of course (well, it depends but in most cases). But fortunately they're not the only two options available.

But the consitution and bill of rights do only apply to US citizens

Last time I heard, the constitution and bill of rights weren't the sole arbriters of moral behaviour in the universe.

[DMZ]

It's plain that the motives of the USA had absolutely nothing to do with the moral argument fed to the populance in order to garner support for the war. Saddam Hussein was not, by all accounts, a particularly benevolent leader, but then neither was he the ultimate evil he was presented as to the western public. There are far worse regimes in existance, no harder if not easier to "deal with" than Iraq, that if America was truly worried about humanitarian concerns should have drawn their attention long before Iraq even made an appearance onto the radar.

In terms of general human rights, Iraq was more or less par for the course in the Middle East. For example - take Saudi Arabia, a monarchy where wealth is concentrated amongst a few elites, political parties are outlawed, women have the same status and rights as a car, and those who disobey Islamic religious law are liable to have their hands chopped off or be stoned to death. Now do a quick mental re-take and think about how you had previously viewed this country as an ally during the war and you'll understand why I chose it as an example - in the simplest terms, to garner support for war, the public are selectively presented with facts such that they see themselves on the side of "good" and the enemy as "evil."

This isn't meant as a criticism of America's actions, which are, as you'd logically expect from the action of any country, in their own best interests. Rather it is a criticism of the way in which we've had this santimonious holier-than-thou rubbish pumped down our throats from politicians representing governments that are far from being pristine in the human rights department themselves.

Anyway, to cut several run-on paragraphs short - the "moral" dimension of the debate on the reason for the war is a red herring. The real reason for war could be anything from America's continued interest in the region as the centre of oil production, not wishing a repeat of Saddams' last attempt to aquire a stranglehold (he wouldn't have stopped at Kuwait, Saudi Arabia was the obvious target), or even something as ridiculous as a personal vendetta due to Bush Jr.'s continued belief that Saddam was responsible for an assassination attempt on his father.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by Texan

MAPOU, Haiti (AP) -- Heavy rains threatened the waterlogged southern border of Haiti and Dominican Republic even as rescue workers rushed Saturday to collect decomposing bodies and reach villagers cut off days ago when torrents and mudslides buried entire communities.

Waters are expected to rise along with the official toll of about 1,000 dead in what is being called "one of the worst natural disasters to hit the Caribbean," according to Secretary-General Cesar Gaviria of the Organization of American States.

U.S.-led troops including Marines, Canadians and Chileans on Saturday continued ferrying food, medicine, plastic sheeting for shelter and aid workers by helicopter to the worst-hit Haitian towns of Mapou and Fond Verrettes.
____________________________________________________

I did not realize that Haiti had oil. I hope this will help bring down fuel prices.

Do I detect some cynicism?

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JammyJim

ho ho.


However it seems the US doesnt so maybe we will have a re-run of the league of nations in the next few years.
or maybe nothing will happen and the US will continue to do what its always done.

precisely whatever it wants.

Heh. The League of Nations was functional? No.