This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]so it has nothing to do with the US gov or the population of the country? but yet they went to war so that they would go deeply in debt and get no benefit. this is sounding like a 9/11 truther/moon landing hoax story. I didn't say that's why the US government went to war. You're strawmanning. I was saying that because you aren't seeing a benefit from current Iraqi oil production doesn't mean nobody is. but the comment i commented on was about america not going anywhere that it would not be able to plunder, if we are not plundering then the point i was trying to invalidate has been invalidated. going to war for plunder and doing everything but plundering are far and away two different actions[QUOTE="Danm_999"] Unless you were a shareholder in one of the major oil corporations that are now, you weren't ever entitled to get it. Iraq is now producing approximately 2.7 million barrels of oil a day, and its foreign oil companies like Exxon and BP that are reaping the windfall now that the oil fields are up and running again.Danm_999
but the comment i commented on was about america not going anywhere that it would not be able to plunder, if we are not plundering then the point i was trying to invalidate has been invalidated. going to war for plunder and doing everything but plundering are far and away two different actionsWhether or not the USA intended to invade Iraq for its oil reserves was irrelevant to my point, foreign companies are now able to exploit those oil reserves. I was challenging the notion that you were supposed to benefit from any of this.surrealnumber5
I didn't say that's why the US government went to war. You're strawmanning. I was saying that because you aren't seeing a benefit from current Iraqi oil production doesn't mean nobody is. but the comment i commented on was about america not going anywhere that it would not be able to plunder, if we are not plundering then the point i was trying to invalidate has been invalidated. going to war for plunder and doing everything but plundering are far and away two different actions[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] so it has nothing to do with the US gov or the population of the country? but yet they went to war so that they would go deeply in debt and get no benefit. this is sounding like a 9/11 truther/moon landing hoax story.
surrealnumber5
.. But Iraq has been plundered.. Iraq War was called the privatized war for A REASON.. The United States is not getting the plunder, the private corporations are.. By two ways.. First is permanently placing their corporation within the infastructure of Iraq... The second is ripping off the United States with subpar services..
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] but the comment i commented on was about america not going anywhere that it would not be able to plunder, if we are not plundering then the point i was trying to invalidate has been invalidated. going to war for plunder and doing everything but plundering are far and away two different actions
Whether or not the USA intended to invade Iraq for its oil reserves was irrelevant to my point, foreign companies are now able to exploit those oil reserves. I was challenging the notion that you were supposed to benefit from any of this. but that was just a little reductio ad absurdum, i am sorry you could not see that. companies are paying the country to drill for oil, they are leasing the land, if you think that is exploitave then your beef should be with the iraq gov[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]
I didn't say that's why the US government went to war. You're strawmanning. I was saying that because you aren't seeing a benefit from current Iraqi oil production doesn't mean nobody is.Danm_999but the comment i commented on was about america not going anywhere that it would not be able to plunder, if we are not plundering then the point i was trying to invalidate has been invalidated. going to war for plunder and doing everything but plundering are far and away two different actions
.. But Iraq has been plundered.. Iraq War was called the privatized war for A REASON.. The United States is not getting the plunder, the private corporations are.. By two ways.. First is permanently placing their corporation within the infastructure of Iraq... The second is ripping off the United States with subpar services..
the political class for better or worse has decided to lease out the land, if it is a bad deal its on there sholders not the companies that took the dealWhy is every international problem the U.S.'s responsibility?UT_WrestlerBecause scapegoats are nice!
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] but the comment i commented on was about america not going anywhere that it would not be able to plunder, if we are not plundering then the point i was trying to invalidate has been invalidated. going to war for plunder and doing everything but plundering are far and away two different actions
surrealnumber5
.. But Iraq has been plundered.. Iraq War was called the privatized war for A REASON.. The United States is not getting the plunder, the private corporations are.. By two ways.. First is permanently placing their corporation within the infastructure of Iraq... The second is ripping off the United States with subpar services..
the political class for better or worse has decided to lease out the land, if it is a bad deal its on there sholders not the companies that took the deal... Surreal your logic is flawless.. They have no choice in the matter, they can either take out bombed out stuff, or take the only choice given.. Regardless Iraq is being plundered.. And so is the United States in this regard.. The contractor companies charged criminal amounts for subpar services..
It will not happen anytime soon, because not only is the America not in a position for another war, but I don't think the rest of the UN Security Council (especially China) will agree to a military solution to the dictatorship problem in North Korea.the_ChEeSe_mAn2
To be fair.. Neither did the UN for Iraq War.. It was a illegal war in all regards on the UN side of things..
[QUOTE="the_ChEeSe_mAn2"]It will not happen anytime soon, because not only is the America not in a position for another war, but I don't think the rest of the UN Security Council (especially China) will agree to a military solution to the dictatorship problem in North Korea.sSubZerOo
To be fair.. Neither did the UN for Iraq War.. It was a illegal war in all regards on the UN side of things..
I was under the impression that the US found a loophole in the UN charter to organize a "police action" just like in Vietnam, no? I might be wrong on that. Either way, I don't think the other 4 UN Security Council members will let USA attack a country that of the Council members share border with unless Kim Jong Il's sanity goes off the deep end and does something immensely reckless.It will not happen anytime soon, because not only is the America not in a position for another war, but I don't think the rest of the UN Security Council (especially China) will agree to a military solution to the dictatorship problem in North Korea.the_ChEeSe_mAn2
To be fair.. Neither did the UN for Iraq War.. It was a illegal war in all regards on the UN side of things..
I was under the impression that the US found a loophole in the UN charter to organize a "police action" just like in Vietnam, no? I might be wrong on that. Either way, I don't think the other 4 UN Security Council members will let USA attack a country that of the Council members share border with unless Kim Jong Il's sanity goes off the deep end and does something immensely reckless. China is not too fond of North Korea. They don't want a unified korea under south korean rule, but they may actually start to lean that way as NK is becoming a massive liability both politically and economically for China. They don't want tides of refugees flooding their country and economically they have more to gain from the south. NK's sabre rattling is starting to piss china off according to some chinese sources.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="the_ChEeSe_mAn2"]It will not happen anytime soon, because not only is the America not in a position for another war, but I don't think the rest of the UN Security Council (especially China) will agree to a military solution to the dictatorship problem in North Korea.the_ChEeSe_mAn2
To be fair.. Neither did the UN for Iraq War.. It was a illegal war in all regards on the UN side of things..
I was under the impression that the US found a loophole in the UN charter to organize a "police action" just like in Vietnam, no? I might be wrong on that. Either way, I don't think the other 4 UN Security Council members will let USA attack a country that of the Council members share border with unless Kim Jong Il's sanity goes off the deep end and does something immensely reckless.Actually the United States multiple times (like China) only uses the UN when it pleases them, and disregards when it doesn't.. There is no loop hole to be done because the US is immune from such things.. The UN's biggest failing is its only as strong as the strongest power's willing to support it.. Meaning its extremely weak.. If this were not the case the Bush admin would be charged with human rights violations/war crimes.. With torturing of suspects and what not.
Yep, great power great responsibility etc. etc.what do we look like the world police to you
spawnassasin
IMO there won't be a war with NK anytime soon. I remember not so long ago everyone thought war with Iran was inevitable and nothing happened. The US army has too much on its plate and the government knows that.
Besides if they wanted to attack Korea and were just waiting for an excuse to do it so they can make it look like they are the good guys the bombing of Yeonpyeong was certainly a pretty good excuse.
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Bashers79"]i am still wating on my oil shares from the last war................ tin foil hats for the loss Unless you were a shareholder in one of the major oil corporations that are now, you weren't ever entitled to get it. Iraq is now producing approximately 2.7 million barrels of oil a day, and its foreign oil companies like Exxon and BP that are reaping the windfall now that the oil fields are up and running again.Unless North Korea has some large stock of natural resources, for example oil,that can bepinched oncethe people of N Korea have been "saved", then I doubt America will be interested.
Danm_999
Newsflash! US oil company now a foreign oil company. Care to fill everyone here which country ExxonMobile moved to?
The irony of this thread is the fact that someone is wanting the US to do something when the US is constantly bashed for sticking it's nose somewhere it supposedly shouldn't be. Make up, y'alls mind now. Do you or do you not want the US to be the world's police or security blanket?
This. You cant nuke other countries just because you feel like it. Things may be bad, but starting a conflict isnt the answer. This is part of why people hate US so much. Because US military thinks they can kill and step in wherever they want.We aren't the world police. Also the cost in money and life would not be worth it at all...
Wasdie
Let's see... Stretched thin military resources? Risk of war with freaking China? The fact that nobody wants the Korean war to start again? Those good enough reasons?PannicAtack
The Korean War never ended.
People are dying and getting killed each day children and elderly. Go assassinate Kim Jong-il already. Like north korea vs america the power of 11 super carriers and a full force of the American army whats so bad to go to war with them already holy crap cyborg9Think of iraq and multiply the us death toll by 100
because everyone might say "GO USA! Go get them!" but in five years people will say "BOOO USA! Get out, imperialistic pigs! Stop killing civies"
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
because everyone might say "GO USA! Go get them!" but in five years people will say "BOOO USA! Get out, imperialistic pigs! Stop killing civies"
Half-Way
Ya! Why did the world get pissed? Its not like we lied to them or anything:P
Hey! They had yellow cake! YELLOW CAKE, I SAY!
Here is the evidence
Clearly from their enrichment facilities
yeah ur right war isnt the answer but if you snipe him and send someone in, Noones gonna point fingers and say its USA!
cyborg9
I'm actually pretty sure everyone would point fingers and say it's USA.
One word china...killzonexbox
Not quite.. North Korea is a nil threat.. They depend off of imports from China.. For Kim to go to war would be a act of political suicide... There is absolutely no reason to invade North Korea...... Furthermore North Korea isn't saber rattling for the sake of it, like India and Pakistan, North Korea and South Korea trade blows all the time.
[QUOTE="killzonexbox"]One word china...sSubZerOo
Not quite.. North Korea is a nil threat.. They depend off of imports from China.. For Kim to go to war would be a act of political suicide... There is absolutely no reason to invade North Korea...... Furthermore North Korea isn't saber rattling for the sake of it, like India and Pakistan, North Korea and South Korea trade blows all the time.
Would China like a pro-US government right at the border of strategically crucial point to perfect US containment policy of China? China isn't going to be too happy about that.[QUOTE="cyborg9"]People are dying and getting killed each day children and elderly. Go assassinate Kim Jong-il already. Like north korea vs america the power of 11 super carriers and a full force of the American army whats so bad to go to war with them already holy crap EmpComThink of iraq and multiply the us death toll by 100
Not if we do a submarine-launched nuclear strike, North Korea would be obliterated.....unless of course other countries get involved, and we know they probably would.
america would lose they would run away after a few 1000 die and they dont have the money for a big war .
dontshackzmii
U.S. can obliterate North Korea off the map....no chance of losing to them
They would never be able to get close enough
China scares me though........U.S. Air Force is FAR superior to China, but it worries me that China has operatives in the U.S.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment