What's That About War For Oil??

[Larkinn]

You are hilarious.

Do you often find facts so amusing?

 

[Larkinn]

With out the US military there would have been no freeing of Kuwait.

Thats nice. In case you didn't notice the UN doesn't have a military. Its resolutions, when they are enforced, are enforced by national militaries. It wasn't a US action, it was a UN action.

The UN just got to tag along because it made it easier.

Haha, no. The UN legitimised and authorised the action.

You asked for a UNSC resolution that got enforced against the countries wishes. I provided you with one. Admit you were wrong or just gloss over it like you always do, but theres no squirming out of this one.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you often find facts so amusing?

Do you actually believe your bilge? I actually had some respect for you before you made these ignorant posts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thats nice. In case you didn't notice the UN doesn't have a military. Its resolutions, when they are enforced, are enforced by national militaries. It wasn't a US action, it was a UN action.



Haha, no. The UN legitimised and authorised the action.

You asked for a UNSC resolution that got enforced against the countries wishes. I provided you with one. Admit you were wrong or just gloss over it like you always do, but theres no squirming out of this one.

You just might want to check your timelines on Gulf War 1.

 

[JimH52]

Okay, now there has to be a "lie" or two in there somewhere.

Lies as defined by many on this board.

"Lies=Any opion whether verbal or non-verbal that differs from your own and which may or may not be based on facts."

I think that might be part of the GOP platform this year.

 

[Larkinn]

Do you actually believe your bilge? I actually had some respect for you before you made these ignorant posts.

And I've always thought you were a dumbshit. These aren't opinions I am posting. If they are so ridiculous, why aren't you providing the alternate facts as opposed to just calling me "hilarious" and "pathetic"? Gee...I wonder why.

You just might want to check your timelines on Gulf War 1.

UNSC res. 660 was on August 2nd. The US invaded January 17th of the following year. What exactly is wrong with my timeline again?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And I've always thought you were a dumbshit. These aren't opinions I am posting. If they are so ridiculous, why aren't you providing the alternate facts as opposed to just calling me "hilarious" and "pathetic"? Gee...I wonder why.



UNSC res. 660 was on August 2nd. The US invaded January 17th of the following year. What exactly is wrong with my timeline again?

You are a fool. But do play your game all you want. Doesn't change the reality.

 

[Larkinn]

You are a fool. But do play your game all you want. Doesn't change the reality.

I've stated the reality. You've stated nothing but insults. Do a little bit of research on int'l law and perhaps you'll figure out you are completely dead wrong. Start with how the US was forced to pay reparations to Antigua.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I've stated the reality. You've stated nothing but insults. Do a little bit of research on int'l law and perhaps you'll figure out you are completely dead wrong. Start with how the US was forced to pay reparations to Antigua.

Sure thing, remind me never to hire you after you become a lawyer.

 

[Toro]

So I guess when all the bush apologists and neo-cons said it WASN'T about oil, they were lying?

Oh wait... we knew that... but the apologists would have called this "lefty"...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jul/28/iraq.usa

Frankly, this article is a bunch of foiler clap-trap. The entire international oil trade accounts for ~1%-2% of global capital flows, and the amount of trade that comes/came from the so-called anti-dollar bloc - Iran, Iraq and Venezuela - accounted for about 0.2% of global capital flows, of which Iraq was less than 0.1%. So we are to believe that America invaded Iraq because the other >99.9% of global trade denominated in dollars couldn't stand on its own and thus had to be rescued in a foreign invasion - an invasion, BTW, that has done more to lower the opinion of America in the eyes of foreigners than any other act in generations, and one that has contributed to the tanking of the dollar by foisting half a trillion more dollars on foreign borrowers. The fact that the invasion along with the tax cuts have done more to weaken the dollar and question its status as a reserve currency than any other government action in decades seems to be lost on the silly conspiracists, who should be ignored.

As for the war, of course the underlying reason for the invasion is about oil. Most American involvement in the Middle East is due to oil. Oil is a strategic resource for the country. So any American involvement in the Middle East will have its genesis in energy.

(However, it seems to escape the war-for-oil theorists that if foreign policy was driven primarily by oil, Israel wouldn't exist. If oil was the driving force behind American foreign policy, then the US would quit propping up the most antagonistic nation to all the countries that actually have all the oil.)

But the war was not conducted so Exxon and Haliburton could take over the oil fields. Obviously, they will benefit - why wouldn't they? But America being involved in the Middle East because oil is a strategic resource and American invading Iraq because the government is doing so for its Texas oil company puppet masters are two very different arguments. If this was simply about oil, the US could have offered $10 billion or $20 billion or $50 billion or whatever to pay off Saddam and allow the companies to win concessions for American oil companies and revitalize a dilapidated Iraqi oil sector.

And for the record, America should never have invaded Iraq and Bush is the most incompetent President of my lifetime.

 

[Toro]

Yes, actually thats because it is illegal.



Check again. Its called the WTO and there are adjudicative bodies set up by the int'l community that have binding force.

By the way, the UNSC has the authority to force a sovreign nation to do whatever it damn well pleases.

You want to back that up.

I'm fairly well schooled in international trade, and I know of nothing in the WTO that forces the US to do anything. As a signatory to an agreement by which the US passed into its own laws, the US agrees to abide by the decisions in international arbitration. However, if the US chooses to ignore the ruling, there is nothing the WTO can do about it other than cite the violation and give legitimacy to countervailing tariffs by the plaintiff nation. It is bad for the US to not abide by a WTO IMHO, but there is nothing that gives the WTO any sovereignty to do anything to another nation.

 

[Larkinn]

Sure thing, remind me never to hire you after you become a lawyer.

Don't worry kid, you couldn't afford me.

 

[Larkinn]

You want to back that up.

I'm fairly well schooled in international trade, and I know of nothing in the WTO that forces the US to do anything. As a signatory to an agreement by which the US passed into its own laws, the US agrees to abide by the decisions in international arbitration. However, if the US chooses to ignore the ruling, there is nothing the WTO can do about it other than cite the violation and give legitimacy to countervailing tariffs by the plaintiff nation. It is bad for the US to not abide by a WTO IMHO, but there is nothing that gives the WTO any sovereignty to do anything to another nation.

Everything you said here is correct, and is not contrary to my statement at all. You do know what binding is, yes? It means that the country must follow the decisions. Not everything that is binding has enforcement mechanisms, but the lack of such mechanisms does not make it any less legally binding.

Actually...one thing you said, while technically correct, does not go far enough. The WTO does not give legitimacy to "countervailing tariffs", it allows them, and further allows not just tariffs but other countermeasures as well. The WTO's ruling on the US ruling internet gambling illegal caused the US to give Antigua an unknown large sum of money each year. And its NOT because the US wanted to give that money over, its because it was effectively forced too. If thats not an enforcement mechanism, I'm not quite sure what is.

 

[Toro]

Everything you said here is correct, and is not contrary to my statement at all. You do know what binding is, yes? It means that the country must follow the decisions. Not everything that is binding has enforcement mechanisms, but the lack of such mechanisms does not make it any less legally binding.

Actually...one thing you said, while technically correct, does not go far enough. The WTO does not give legitimacy to "countervailing tariffs", it allows them, and further allows not just tariffs but other countermeasures as well. The WTO's ruling on the US ruling internet gambling illegal caused the US to give Antigua an unknown large sum of money each year. And its NOT because the US wanted to give that money over, its because it was effectively forced too. If thats not an enforcement mechanism, I'm not quite sure what is.

But the WTO can't do anything to force the US to pay.

A perfect example of this is the softwood lumber case. The GATT, the WTO and NAFTA have continuously ruled against the US softwood lumber industry since at least 1981, and the US has continuously ignored and flouted the international rulings. Canada has not been able to enforce the many rulings against the United States. (And if Canada cannot, what can Antigua do? I believe the US has not yet started paying Antigua, as they should, though I may be wrong on that.)

This is terrible policy IMHO, because not only does the US undermine its own credibility in international negotiations, it forces Americans to pay about $3000 extra in taxes for a house. But having said that, there is no international organization forcing the US to do anything.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But the WTO can't do anything to force the US to pay.

A perfect example of this is the softwood lumber case. The GATT, the WTO and NAFTA have continuously ruled against the US softwood lumber industry since at least 1981, and the US has continuously ignored and flouted the international rulings. Canada has not been able to enforce the many rulings against the United States. (And if Canada cannot, what can Antigua do? I believe the US has not yet started paying Antigua, as they should, though I may be wrong on that.)

This is terrible policy IMHO, because not only does the US undermine its own credibility in international negotiations, it forces Americans to pay about $3000 extra in taxes for a house. But having said that, there is no international organization forcing the US to do anything.

He does not get it. He must believe in Santa Clause, the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny too. Blind, willful ignorance.

 

[Larkinn]

But the WTO can't do anything to force the US to pay.

Yes, and no. Again, the WTO does not have its own enforcement mechanisms, but by allowing countries to take countermeasures it can act as an enforcement mechanism. By the way, regardless of whether there are enforcement mechanisms or not the WTO rulings ARE binding.

A perfect example of this is the softwood lumber case. The GATT, the WTO and NAFTA have continuously ruled against the US softwood lumber industry since at least 1981, and the US has continuously ignored and flouted the international rulings. Canada has not been able to enforce the many rulings against the United States. (And if Canada cannot, what can Antigua do? I believe the US has not yet started paying Antigua, as they should, though I may be wrong on that.)

I don't know enough about the Softwood case to comment. As for Antigua, the WTO gave them permission to ignore American copyrights and patents. The threat of that made the US cave right quick. I believe the US has started paying Antigua, although its unclear what the amount is since the USTR won't release those figures.

This is terrible policy IMHO, because not only does the US undermine its own credibility in international negotiations, it forces Americans to pay about $3000 extra in taxes for a house. But having said that, there is no international organization forcing the US to do anything.

The WTO is forcing the US to settle with Antigua. Otherwise they would be creating copies of Microsoft for legal sale at $10 a pop.

You are simplifying int'l law a bit too much. No int'l organization is going to go to the US and say "do x or we will invade". Thats just not going to happen. But treating the WTO as if its non-binding is just simply unrealistic and incorrect. Even if it won't always get followed, it always DOES have an effect and sometimes its rulings can compel even the most powerful country in the world to cave.

 

[Larkinn]

He does not get it. He must believe in Santa Clause, the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny too. Blind, willful ignorance.

The adults are having a conversation, go away.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The adults are having a conversation, go away.

Toro may be an adult, YOU are spoiled brat that thinks he is important.

As long as we are talking about hypotheticals and all, remind us again how Clinton never committed the crime of Perjury.

 

[Larkinn]

Toro may be an adult, YOU are spoiled brat that thinks he is important.

As long as we are talking about hypotheticals and all, remind us again how Clinton never committed the crime of Perjury.

Where did I say that Clinton never committed perjury? Thanks for the lie. Now go away, boy.

And really...we are talking about the WTO, which apparently you are too stupid to understand. If you want to blabber on about Clinton, take it to another thread.

 

[cbi0090]

You know, one thing that seems to escape people when talking about the war and oil is that they are the ones asking for it. The President, any President, has to face the fact that gas prices greatly affect politics. He has to do his part to keep oil flowing as long as the general population demands it...and we "demand" it. Our society is centered about the automobile and nearly everything we transport is by road driven trucks.

We cry and blubber over a 5 cent raise, yet our gas prices have never approached European prices in the past and are still lower even today.

And look at what we have been doing for the last 15 years? Where did Escalades, Hummers, and all those soccer moms behind the wheel of those tanks rolling down our roads come from? It drives me nuts to see some anti-war, anti-Bush sticker on the bumper of some monster SUV. What hypocrisy!!

We are tied to the middle east not by our throats but by our private parts and all of their screwed up politics/ religions as well. We can't help but get immersed in their mess. Is it about oil? Hell, yes. But before you bitch take a look at what your driving, how far do you commute, how many square feet does your home occupy, and ask, how much do you demand?