Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Oil and Money. What is the USA really after?

donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2013 10:35:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Many people think the USA is in the Middle East for it's own selfish gain. It's so commonly accepted that you almost think it has to be true, but I just don't find it as plausible the more I look into it. (Firstly, the term Occupied here will only refer to forced occupations.)

Why is the US in the Middle East?

To start, let's look at the Oil Supply. Canada has 175 billion barrels of Oil, Saudi Arabia has an amazing 265.4 billion barrels of Oil. Venezuela has an astonishing 296.5 billion barrels of Oil(a). The US is not occupying any of those top three. One of the (shockingly few, maybe only 2 or 3) nations in the Middle East that the US occupies, Afghanistan, has no Oil at all.(b)

a) https://en.wikipedia.org...
b) http://www.exchangerate.com...

The other statistics to look at includes how much money is made off the Oil and how much of it the US gets. The US only gets around 10.19% of all the Middle East's oil(c,d), most of which comes from Saudi Arabia (62.7% of all Middle East oil to the US comes from Arabia), not US occupied nations. This amounts to 12.9% of all US oil. The US gets from Canada, Latin America and the US itself, around 15.1%, 19.6%, and 38.8% of it's Oil respectively.(e)

c) http://www.eia.gov...
d) http://www.eia.gov...
e) http://www.npr.org...

Europe gets around 17% of their Oil from the Middle East.

How much does the US make off the Oil though? Only the taxes earned on that 10.19%. The Government doesn't control or directly tax the Oil in the Middle East. It is regulated and tax by the nation it's produced in. Oil Production is still done by the nation and business that own the fields, Exxon Mobil, Texaco, BP, Kuwait, Iran, etc... They earn all the money. The US would be spending $100 of billions a year to earn the same amount as before the war.

The US does have cheap oil, at around $3.68 a gallon(f). Europe has tremendous Oil prices at about 1.39 Euros a liter, or $7.00 per gallon (the highest at 1.90 Euros a liter, or $9.54 a gallon)(g). Why? It's not because the US controls the oil supply, it's because the US uses so much of it's own oil, while Europe has among the world's smallest Oil Productions (at only 3,000,000 barrels a day, slightly under half that of the US's production, but to supply a population twice as large)(h,i), causing them to have to import much more than the US. Much of the US's oil supply also comes from Canada, right above the US, making for a cheap import. If the US government really wanted to get richer off the Oil taxes, they would let the Oil prices skyrocket to European prices, increasing the tax dollar amount by 190.2% the current income, and without the $6 trillion+ cost of wars in the Middle East(j).

f) http://www.eia.gov...
g) http://en.rian.ru...
h) http://dailyfusion.net...
i) http://www.eia.gov...
j) http://www.globalresearch.ca...

What about China and Russia?

The US is involved in Afghanistan. With this in mind, it's possible the US is simply protecting the Middle East supply from three of its biggest threats. China, Russia, and the Middle East itself. In the past decades, the Middle East has seen numerous civil wars. None were seen in US occupied countries(k). It's possible that if the US was not in the Middle East, Civil Wars would have spread through Iraq and other countries otherwise untouched. In fact, we know they would have, if you check the source below, you'll see that there wasn't a civil war or insurgence in Iraq until after the US withdrawal. This would have devastating effects on the World's Oil Supply, and Oil Prices. The EU might have seen oil costs capable of collapsing the Euro and the EU.

k) http://en.wikipedia.org...

What if the US left? Russia might strike down on the Middle East, having the largest European army (second strongest army on Earth still)(l) and Europe's largest (or one of the largest) Economy, and still in the top 6 largest in the world(m). It's more likely, however, that China would have moved in. While the Middle East is under US control, the situation is somewhat comfortable in proportion to if China held control. China would likely take full control of Oil Production and care little for the Middle Eastern inhabitants. We know they wouldn't care about the people living in the Middle East because of their treatment of the painfully underpaid people living in their own country.

l) http://www.globalfirepower.com...
m) http://databank.worldbank.org...

The question is not "Would China/Russia move in if the US moved out?" It's "How quickly would they."

My conclusion?

It's more likely that the US isn't in the Middle East to selfishly get itself oil. It's more likely that the US is there to protect the World's largest source of oil, the most powerful resource in the world. The US saw first hand what happens when you are held hostage by the Middle East(n). The question comes, who do you want controlling the Oil Supply? The US, China, Russia, or Middle Eastern dictators (who have a habit of always reappearing)? For the US, it's not really about controlling the Oil, but controlling the situation around the Oil.

n) http://en.wikipedia.org...

Right now, China has far less power than people think. Their economy is based too much off replaceable exports. Most nations would only hurt for a while if they lost all Chinese exports, but quickly rebuild. China's economy would lose most of the 31% of their economy built on exports (Up to $2.550 trillion) and many of their imports. This would move them below Japan as 2nd largest economy(o,p), while the US would lose far less than the 14% of their economy built on exports. With this in mind, China mostly has little power in the long run because their products are typically second rate, replaceable, and only purchased for their low cost. The other nations wouldn't lose any goods or services, and would likely see increasing economies due to more spending and growing industries in their own land over time.

o) http://data.worldbank.org...
p) https://www.cia.gov...

If China held control of the Middle East and possibly North Africa, they would control up to 65% of the World oil reserves(q), and a huge portion of the world's production. This would give China solid power in a world that depends on Oil almost as much as it depends on sunlight.

q) http://en.wikipedia.org...

So long as there is Oil in the Middle East, someone will try to control it. But there simply does not seem to be any evidence that the US is in the Middle East for oil and profits (selfishly). In fact, the US is currently importing a smaller percentage of its Oil from the Middle East then it was when the wars started. It seems more likely that the US is protecting the supply. Europe has benefited from this much more than the US has.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's some information for you to look at. But I want to know what you think. Why do you believe the US is truly in the Middle East? Is it for Money? Power? Resources? Protection? What is your informed opinion on this issue?
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 10:44:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Another relevant fact is that the oil produced by Iraq is sold at the market price and the Iraqis are the beneficiaries. If we went their to steal their oil, how come we didn't steal their oil?

The US sells oil services worldwide, so when oil resources are developed pretty much anywhere, oil services benefits. The two big oil service companies in the world are the US Haliburton and the French Schlumberger. So if a country wants to they can buy from Schlumberger. Multiple investigations showed Haliburton didn't make anything in Iraq; security costs ate up the profits.

The US is in the Middle East primarily to prevent terrorists from having a safe haven. The terrorists have been so preoccupied with running and hiding, they haven't been able to muster a major attack. So far, the terrorists have not been able to develop and manufacture biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. Obama is returning Afghanistan to safe haven status, letting Iran develop nukes, and letting Iraq fall to Iranian control; so we'll see how well the new policy works. However, the reason we got it their was to prevent all that.

Other reasons for Middle East involvement is to support Israeli. There are 550 million Arabs and 4 million Israelis, the the US has a thing about not having another holocaust. In the case of Saddam, he was deliberately provocative under the assumption that the US would never do anything. He was trying to shout down US aircraft, refusing WMD inspections, and building up massive stores of convention arms with announced intent of invading Saudi Arabia. He was stomped, in part, to restore US credibility.

Incidentally, thanks to fracking and oil shale, US recoverable oil reserves are now around a trillion barrels. If the EPA doesn't get to work and prevent it, the US will be the world's largest Oil producer in seven years. The US will need no oil outside of North America.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 11:02:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 10:44:16 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Obama is returning Afghanistan to safe haven status

Evidence?

letting Iran develop nukes

Evidence?

and letting Iraq fall to Iranian control

Evidence, and that doesn't make any sense; Iraq and Iran were traditionally enemies.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 11:54:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 10:35:19 PM, donald.keller wrote:

My conclusion?

It's more likely that the US isn't in the Middle East to selfishly get itself oil. It's more likely that the US is there to protect the World's largest source of oil, the most powerful resource in the world. The US saw first hand what happens when you are held hostage by the Middle East(n). The question comes, who do you want controlling the Oil Supply? The US, China, Russia, or Middle Eastern dictators (who have a habit of always reappearing)? For the US, it's not really about controlling the Oil, but controlling the situation around the Oil.

Good analysis but your conclusion is contradictory. By controlling oil markets through its policing actions, the US is controlling the price of oil, thus lowering the economic drag inherent in what would occur if oil prices rose through the roof.

This is indeed for the purpose to "selfishly get itself oil".

Right now, China has far less power than people think. Their economy is based too much off replaceable exports. Most nations would only hurt for a while if they lost all Chinese exports, but quickly rebuild.

The China analysis is incorrect. The question is what would happen to nations that do not do business with the low cost leader? The answer is simple...they would lose business. In this sense, China's cost advantage will keep it in the game - no one can afford not to do business with it. This would be true of any other nation that could deliver on goods on demand and at low cost.

Just put it in terms of your oil example here. Imagine if there were a bunch of producers that required an input to fuel their productivity, except instead of energy this input is labor. If you continually relied on a source of input that was 10 times the price of your competitor's, you will be run out of business. This logic necessitates that all businesses/nations gravitate to the low cost leader, and that leader is currently China.

So long as there is Oil in the Middle East, someone will try to control it. But there simply does not seem to be any evidence that the US is in the Middle East for oil and profits (selfishly).

Again, contradictory. Controlling oil markets is a selfish goal. We don't seem to receive oil revenues or taxes, but if the real price of oil was $200 for example (i.e. the price without US intervention), then at today's rigged market price of $100 we would essentially be receiving a $100 discount for every barrel of oil we consume. This is a substantial economic benefit to the US.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 1:18:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My point is that the US isn't in for it's own Oil Security, but for Global Security. Of course it'd benefit, remember it's apart of the Globe.

And China's power is tiny in proportion to the power it'd hold if it actually owned the Middle East's supply.

I feel I should mention. We didn't find nuclear bombs in Iraq. That does not mean there weren't WMD's. A WMD does not stand for Nuclear Bomb. It stands for Weapon of Mass Destruction, which refers to any weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general.

This includes chemical warfare or biological weapons.

Just because there weren't any Nuclear Bomb found (as far as they're telling you,) does not mean there were WMD's.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 2:09:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
An important component of this discussion has been left out. I will add it, despite uncertainty as to how it affects the larger topic:

The US is not in Iraq.

I suppose we could simply make the arguments "past tense" and see if they still hold. I rather think they might. I have always been suspicious of the "blood for oil" sloganeering. I personally feel that our adventures in Iraq are even less noble than securing energy currency for the world.

To me, the argument necessarily skips too many steps; greed alone cannot explain it.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 2:24:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This statement absolutely requires answer. It exhibits breathtaking ignorance and arrogance:

"The US is in the Middle East primarily to prevent terrorists from having a safe haven. The terrorists have been so preoccupied with running and hiding, they haven't been able to muster a major attack. So far, the terrorists have not been able to develop and manufacture biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. Obama is returning Afghanistan to safe haven status, letting Iran develop nukes, and letting Iraq fall to Iranian control; so we'll see how well the new policy works. However, the reason we got it their was to prevent all that."

The residents of India and China and Chechnya and Iraq and Afghanistan and Indonesia and London might be surprised to learn that they were not victims of terror attacks. Perhaps they should be reminded that if these slaughters did not happen in America ... Then they did not happen at all.

This type of blindness has destroyed the US reputation globally. So many Duck Dynasties seem to think that "terrorism" is a nationality and not a political tactic. "We can kill the terrorists by going to where they live," is commonly recited. Tantamount to saying that "we will kill flanking maneuverists by going to their homelands." Or, "we can defeat the scourge of trench warfare by going to the places that trench fighters live."

"Terrorists" are not anthropological types.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 2:26:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's true. The US is not occupying Iraq anymore. The liberal media (and it is mostly Liberal) still talks about it and act like we are because if they admitted the US is no longer in Iraq, they would have nothing to use against the Conservative politicians. Conservatives won't admit it because if they did, they couldn't bash on Obama for breaking his promises and doing nothing.

--------------------------------------------

Obviously Oil is important. Without it, the world would crash. In the 1973 Oil Crisis, the world learned the Middle East is willing to use it's supply as a weapon (not surprisingly.) We also learned what it's like when oil prices are too high and oil supply is disturbed.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 2:31:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 1:18:30 PM, donald.keller wrote:
My point is that the US isn't in for it's own Oil Security, but for Global Security. Of course it'd benefit, remember it's apart of the Globe.

And China's power is tiny in proportion to the power it'd hold if it actually owned the Middle East's supply.

I feel I should mention. We didn't find nuclear bombs in Iraq. That does not mean there weren't WMD's. A WMD does not stand for Nuclear Bomb. It stands for Weapon of Mass Destruction, which refers to any weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general.

This includes chemical warfare or biological weapons.

Just because there weren't any Nuclear Bomb found (as far as they're telling you,) does not mean there were WMD's.

As far as they're telling us? You gotta be kidding, like they wouldn't have flaunted anything they could even construe as a WMD had they found one.
There's a saying that we knew they had chemical WMD's because we still had the receipts. Of course they had chemical weapons, we gave it to them, we also gave them the helicopters with which they used the chemical weapons.
Most everyone admitted invading Iraq was a mistake and we have nothing to show for it.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 2:33:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 2:26:24 PM, donald.keller wrote:
That's true. The US is not occupying Iraq anymore. The liberal media (and it is mostly Liberal) still talks about it and act like we are because if they admitted the US is no longer in Iraq, they would have nothing to use against the Conservative politicians. Conservatives won't admit it because if they did, they couldn't bash on Obama for breaking his promises and doing nothing.

--------------------------------------------

Obviously Oil is important. Without it, the world would crash. In the 1973 Oil Crisis, the world learned the Middle East is willing to use it's supply as a weapon (not surprisingly.) We also learned what it's like when oil prices are too high and oil supply is disturbed.

I only disagree that "the liberal media loved the Iraq War and pretends that it is still occurring." If we can resolve this point, and dismiss the conclusions that rely on it as a premise, then we will be in general agreement.

Please defend this by naming the most liberal national news outlet - MSNBC, the Huffington Post, etc., so that we can see if they have covered the withdrawal. I remember Rachel Maddow covering the end of the war triumphantly. She is liberal, if owned.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 2:42:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I see an amusing rejoiner; Huffington Post ran an article pointing out that Fox NEWS only covered the troop pullout from Iraq for ten minutes.

http://m.huffpost.com...
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 2:56:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Like I said, both sides can use the war to their political advantage, neither wants to admit it's over.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:36:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I was eager to see it end, and I consider myself a screaming liberal.

The point can be dropped, as it is only peripherally relevant to this thread. I won't press the matter.

I feel that going to war for oil is justified. I feel that going to war preemptively is an act of Satanic horror. The stated reason for our Iraq-based slaughter was that we needed to prevent an unarmed tyrant from destroying our greatest American cities. This was absurd from the start, and I found some degree of solace in the notion that we were protecting the world's energy supply and preventing militarism.

These notions make me feel like a pawn today, but they were comforting ideas then.

The idea that we went into Iraq for the UNSTATED goal of securing their oil has some merit, and can be defended. I, however, cannot shake my disillusioned cynicism after my failure to comprehend how evil most Americans can possibly allow themselves to become.

I am afraid that we went into Iraq for reasons that had to do with adventure, as well as profit.

These profits were not strictly oil-based. There were a great many manufacturers of military equipment that wanted war, and were able to bribe American politicians into becoming customers. This, to my mind, hits closer to the mark of why we went into Iraq.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:47:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I was referring to the Media and Politicians.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 5:56:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 1:18:30 PM, donald.keller wrote:
My point is that the US isn't in for it's own Oil Security, but for Global Security. Of course it'd benefit, remember it's apart of the Globe.

I would say there is little difference. America currently has an unparalleled near-global hegemony. The world's interests are our interests.

And China's power is tiny in proportion to the power it'd hold if it actually owned the Middle East's supply.

I feel I should mention. We didn't find nuclear bombs in Iraq. That does not mean there weren't WMD's. A WMD does not stand for Nuclear Bomb. It stands for Weapon of Mass Destruction, which refers to any weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general.

This includes chemical warfare or biological weapons.

Just because there weren't any Nuclear Bomb found (as far as they're telling you,) does not mean there were WMD's.

Believe it or not, Al Gore was the first advocate for "tough action" on Iraq to purge terrorist connections and clean up whatever WMDs were in there.

And you wonder why he didn't run in 2004. He would have been crucified as a massive hypocrite.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 6:28:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 5:56:51 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/27/2013 1:18:30 PM, donald.keller wrote:
My point is that the US isn't in for it's own Oil Security, but for Global Security. Of course it'd benefit, remember it's apart of the Globe.

I would say there is little difference. America currently has an unparalleled near-global hegemony. The world's interests are our interests.

And China's power is tiny in proportion to the power it'd hold if it actually owned the Middle East's supply.

I feel I should mention. We didn't find nuclear bombs in Iraq. That does not mean there weren't WMD's. A WMD does not stand for Nuclear Bomb. It stands for Weapon of Mass Destruction, which refers to any weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general.

This includes chemical warfare or biological weapons.

Just because there weren't any Nuclear Bomb found (as far as they're telling you,) does not mean there were WMD's.

Believe it or not, Al Gore was the first advocate for "tough action" on Iraq to purge terrorist connections and clean up whatever WMDs were in there.

And you wonder why he didn't run in 2004. He would have been crucified as a massive hypocrite.



I had forgotten about Al Gore's views on the subject. He often fell into the Clintoesque habit of taking sharp rightward turns. Some felt that these were intended to "traingulate" political opposition.

It is not easily forgiven, in any case. We had paid Saddam Hussein for decades to root out the "terrorists." Gore should have known how effective the Iraqi dictator could be in maintaining order.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 1:12:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is not easily forgiven, in any case. We had paid Saddam Hussein for decades to root out the "terrorists." Gore should have known how effective the Iraqi dictator could be in maintaining order.

In reality, we were basically paying him to oppress his people under the guise of stopping terrorism.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
korbin
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 2:55:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/26/2013 10:55:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
http://www.conservativepolitico.org...

I think the U.S. is after money i also believe the u.s. is trying to make other countries rely on them for supplies.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 4:06:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 2:55:37 PM, korbin wrote:
At 7/26/2013 10:55:54 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
http://www.conservativepolitico.org...

I think the U.S. is after money i also believe the u.s. is trying to make other countries rely on them for supplies.

You think? Do you have evidence? I have been researching this for a large time, and I'm not seeing it.

The world already relies on supplies. The US seems to be trying to make sure the sources of those supplies can be relied on.

The US gets $0 from oil in the Middle East, and outspend any profit they would have made anyways.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2013 4:32:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/28/2013 1:12:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:
It is not easily forgiven, in any case. We had paid Saddam Hussein for decades to root out the "terrorists." Gore should have known how effective the Iraqi dictator could be in maintaining order.

In reality, we were basically paying him to oppress his people under the guise of stopping terrorism.

Which means that we were funding the oppression of the Iraqi people for a generation before we began bombing them with cluster bombs. We stopped terrorism by out competing them, and monopolizing their operations.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 1:29:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/30/2013 4:32:06 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/28/2013 1:12:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:
It is not easily forgiven, in any case. We had paid Saddam Hussein for decades to root out the "terrorists." Gore should have known how effective the Iraqi dictator could be in maintaining order.

In reality, we were basically paying him to oppress his people under the guise of stopping terrorism.

Which means that we were funding the oppression of the Iraqi people for a generation before we began bombing them with cluster bombs. We stopped terrorism by out competing them, and monopolizing their operations.

The unsupported opinion of a media zombie. The US didn't (intentionally) bomb Iraqi citizens. That's a logical fallacy. US bombed Iraqi's =/= US bombed citizens.

Of course citizens died, but not nearly that many. Most of the US kill count are still solders. You're simply using a common demonized view of the US and the Iraqi War to make your argument.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 1:52:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 1:29:12 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 7/30/2013 4:32:06 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/28/2013 1:12:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:
It is not easily forgiven, in any case. We had paid Saddam Hussein for decades to root out the "terrorists." Gore should have known how effective the Iraqi dictator could be in maintaining order.

In reality, we were basically paying him to oppress his people under the guise of stopping terrorism.

Which means that we were funding the oppression of the Iraqi people for a generation before we began bombing them with cluster bombs. We stopped terrorism by out competing them, and monopolizing their operations.

The unsupported opinion of a media zombie. The US didn't (intentionally) bomb Iraqi citizens. That's a logical fallacy. US bombed Iraqi's =/= US bombed citizens.

Of course citizens died, but not nearly that many. Most of the US kill count are still solders. You're simply using a common demonized view of the US and the Iraqi War to make your argument.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org...

Documented CIVILIAN deaths from violence (not including malnutrition, inadequate health care, and not including injuries):

over 113,000 so far.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,281
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 6:16:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:36:30 PM, DeFool wrote:

I am afraid that we went into Iraq for reasons that had to do with adventure, as well as profit.

These profits were not strictly oil-based. There were a great many manufacturers of military equipment that wanted war, and were able to bribe American politicians into becoming customers. This, to my mind, hits closer to the mark of why we went into Iraq.

I will agree with this, except perhaps to replace the term "Adventure" for "political distraction."
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 9:05:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 1:52:49 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 1:29:12 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 7/30/2013 4:32:06 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 7/28/2013 1:12:32 PM, donald.keller wrote:
It is not easily forgiven, in any case. We had paid Saddam Hussein for decades to root out the "terrorists." Gore should have known how effective the Iraqi dictator could be in maintaining order.

In reality, we were basically paying him to oppress his people under the guise of stopping terrorism.

Which means that we were funding the oppression of the Iraqi people for a generation before we began bombing them with cluster bombs. We stopped terrorism by out competing them, and monopolizing their operations.

The unsupported opinion of a media zombie. The US didn't (intentionally) bomb Iraqi citizens. That's a logical fallacy. US bombed Iraqi's =/= US bombed citizens.

Of course citizens died, but not nearly that many. Most of the US kill count are still solders. You're simply using a common demonized view of the US and the Iraqi War to make your argument.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org...

Documented CIVILIAN deaths from violence (not including malnutrition, inadequate health care, and not including injuries):

over 113,000 so far.

wrichcirw correctly demonstrates the massive pain and terror experienced by the Iraqi public. I will go further, and point out that the massive number of Iraqi soldiers killed also represents an avoidable, and unacceptable human tragedy.

These soldiers were harmless to us, and to others when compared to us. (We killed far more innocent Iraqis than would have died under the orders of Saddam Hussein.) Moreover, they lived under a tyranny, and had no say in political matters. They could not improve the decisions made by their governmental leaders, and were forced to suffer as a result of the horrible edicts of the Saddam regime.

I will go even further, and argue that the American servicemen and women who were killed, maimed, and forced to end lives in the name of the Iraq War should also be considered victims of the same political decisions made by Saddam Hussein and George W Bush.

If we want dark-eyed villains to blame for the pain of this war, we should consider Ronald Reagan, George W Bush, Saddam Hussein and the war profiteers who made billions by these political decisions. Some of these political decisions did in fact involve securing resources such as oil. The other decisions that went into the final strategy are likely to be even more demonic.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 12:28:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 11:54:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
... By controlling oil markets through its policing actions, the US is controlling the price of oil, thus lowering the economic drag inherent in what would occur if oil prices rose through the roof.

This is indeed for the purpose to "selfishly get itself oil".

The principle you are espousing is that criminal and terrorist actions should not be stopped because that is part of a free market. The principle applies not just to oil, but to any situation in which there is law and order, because preventing theft and sabotage would in those cases interfere with the same concept of a "free market." So by that principle, a free market in banking requires that we not have law enforcement protect or punish bank robbery for fear of upsetting the free market. I suppose by that logic slavery would have to be allowed to preserve a free market for labor, because we won't want to drive up the cost of labor by stopping slave owners from getting labor for free.

The argument is nonsense. A free market requires that people be allowed to make contracts and carry them out. Yes, it is in some sense "selfish" to want an efficient economy in which deals are made solely based upon competitive pressure. The selfishness applies equally to both sides of the deal. Oil producers selfishly want to sell oil to get money, and buyers of oil selfishly want to get the oil that they in turn use to support their economy.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 12:30:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 12:28:03 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 7/27/2013 11:54:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
... By controlling oil markets through its policing actions, the US is controlling the price of oil, thus lowering the economic drag inherent in what would occur if oil prices rose through the roof.

This is indeed for the purpose to "selfishly get itself oil".

The principle you are espousing is that criminal and terrorist actions should not be stopped because that is part of a free market.

That is NOT the principle I am espousing. The principle I am espousing is that wars are fought for self-interest.

The principle applies not just to oil, but to any situation in which there is law and order, because preventing theft and sabotage would in those cases interfere with the same concept of a "free market." So by that principle, a free market in banking requires that we not have law enforcement protect or punish bank robbery for fear of upsetting the free market. I suppose by that logic slavery would have to be allowed to preserve a free market for labor, because we won't want to drive up the cost of labor by stopping slave owners from getting labor for free.

The argument is nonsense. A free market requires that people be allowed to make contracts and carry them out. Yes, it is in some sense "selfish" to want an efficient economy in which deals are made solely based upon competitive pressure. The selfishness applies equally to both sides of the deal. Oil producers selfishly want to sell oil to get money, and buyers of oil selfishly want to get the oil that they in turn use to support their economy.

I'm not sure where you're getting any of this from. I also agree that the argument you are describing is utter nonsense.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 12:44:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 2:24:06 PM, DeFool wrote:
This statement absolutely requires answer. It exhibits breathtaking ignorance and arrogance:

The residents of India and China and Chechnya and Iraq and Afghanistan and Indonesia and London might be surprised to learn that they were not victims of terror attacks. Perhaps they should be reminded that if these slaughters did not happen in America ... Then they did not happen at all.

I presumed that the purpose of US policy is primarily to protect the United States. You find that "ignorant and arrogant." So are the other countries you mentioned also ignorant and arrogant because they are acting in their interests? It's quite obviously more difficult for terrorists to pull off a major attack against the US than terrorists killing innocent people in their home towns. It's also quite a different matter to have a safe haven suitable for building WMDs than having individuals or cells making IEDs.

The US has a problem with homegrown terrorist attacks (Boston, Ft. Hood), but that's a problem different from the problem of letting al Qaeda nuke up. US policies of denying safe havens and WMDs directly benefit other countries fighting terrorism, even though the policy is mainly for US benefit.

This type of blindness has destroyed the US reputation globally. ....

So what is your solution? Is it to allow safe havens and WMDs? How about extending the loving hand of kindness to terrorists everywhere? Do tell.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2013 12:49:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/31/2013 12:30:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/31/2013 12:28:03 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 7/27/2013 11:54:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
... By controlling oil markets through its policing actions, the US is controlling the price of oil, thus lowering the economic drag inherent in what would occur if oil prices rose through the roof.
....

I'm not sure where you're getting any of this from. I also agree that the argument you are describing is utter nonsense.

You said that keeping oil supplies moving by preventing terrorist attacks equates to controlling the price of oil. That necessarily implies that you think a free market should allow criminals and to flourish. Otherwise by your logic it is price control.

Your error is supposing "self-interest" and "mutual self-interest" are equivalent.