The 'back door' policy....

King of the Americas · 28th January 2003, 05:31 AM

...that you DON'T know about, but that many people 'think' might be our real stance toward Iraq:

"The purpose is to gain access to a middle east oil supplier that doesn't make us look hypocritcal toward our stances on freedom and democracy. We will replace the dictatorship in Iraq with a more freedom friendly democratic government, and secure a low price for their oil with a special contract constructed to limit their oil trade outside of their trade with us. The purpose is a long term one, such that this will allow us to sever our ties with Saudi Arabian oil, so that after Iraq we can invade Saudia Arabia and introduce a more democratic system there as well. We ARE serving democracy on a long term basis, but the apperance is that we are only interested incheap oil on the short term basis...well while that may appear to be true, one can not discount the ultimate purpose in making the middle east more free."

(Guess who said it and when.)

---

To Disarm Iraq or to rid Iraq of Saddam's rule?

To give Iraq democratic control over their own oil supplies, OR to instill a puppet government that sells it to us exclusively at a low price?

Psiload · 28th January 2003, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...that you DON'T know about, but that many people 'think' might be our real stance toward Iraq:

"The purpose is to gain access to a middle east oil supplier that doesn't make us look hypocritcal toward our stances on freedom and democracy. We will replace the dictatorship in Iraq with a more freedom friendly democratic government, and secure a low price for their oil with a special contract constructed to limit their oil trade outside of their trade with us. The purpose is a long term one, such that this will allow us to sever our ties with Saudi Arabian oil, so that after Iraq we can invade Saudia Arabia and introduce a more democratic system there as well. We ARE serving democracy on a long term basis, but the apperance is that we are only interested incheap oil on the short term basis...well while that may appear to be true, one can not discount the ultimate purpose in making the middle east more free."

(Guess who said it and when.)

---

To Disarm Iraq or to rid Iraq of Saddam's rule?

To give Iraq democratic control over their own oil supplies, OR to instill a puppet government that sells it to us exclusively at a low price?

Sounds like your classic Win-Win situation.

You give two extreme situations, the reality, as per usual, probably lies somewhere between the two. Furthermore, the end result of either "policy" would be an improvement over the current situation, both for the Iraqi people, as well as the US... and the rest of the world at large for that matter.

King of the Americas · 28th January 2003, 07:37 AM

The only thing we have to fear is Iraqi Nationalism...

The protection of culture is more than just sacred to these peoples. An invasion of Americanism is likely to be looked upon as imperialistic.

Any such invasion would be a costly one, frought with intended consequences.

Psiload · 28th January 2003, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
The only thing we have to fear is Iraqi Nationalism...

The protection of culture is more than just sacred to these peoples. An invasion of Americanism is likely to be looked upon as imperialistic.

Any such invasion would be a costly one, frought with intended consequences.

Yeah, those intended consequences can be a real bitch.

Kodiak · 28th January 2003, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...that you DON'T know about, but that many people 'think' might be our real stance toward Iraq:

"The purpose is to gain access to a middle east oil supplier that doesn't make us look hypocritcal toward our stances on freedom and democracy. We will replace the dictatorship in Iraq with a more freedom friendly democratic government, and secure a low price for their oil with a special contract constructed to limit their oil trade outside of their trade with us. The purpose is a long term one, such that this will allow us to sever our ties with Saudi Arabian oil, so that after Iraq we can invade Saudia Arabia and introduce a more democratic system there as well. We ARE serving democracy on a long term basis, but the apperance is that we are only interested incheap oil on the short term basis...well while that may appear to be true, one can not discount the ultimate purpose in making the middle east more free."

(Guess who said it and when.)

---

To Disarm Iraq or to rid Iraq of Saddam's rule?

To give Iraq democratic control over their own oil supplies, OR to instill a puppet government that sells it to us exclusively at a low price?

The biggest problem I see with your scenario?

OPEC...

Jocko · 28th January 2003, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by King of the Americas
We will replace the dictatorship in Iraq with a more freedom friendly democratic government, and secure a low price for their oil with a special contract constructed to limit their oil trade outside of their trade with us.

This is the silliest thing I've heard out of you in quite a while. Think this through and disagree if you can:

Okay, you're an American oil company.
You deal with dictatorships and repressive monarchies in the middle east.
The cost of doing business is relatively low because no one there has a right to strike for higher wages, or bargain collectively for those pesky benefits without risking execution.
Business, for you (the American oil company), is good. The only premium you pay is the tributes to the corrput leadership of those nations. Pretty cheap prices for unfettered commerce.

But look out! Along comes free speech and democratic reform! Not far behind that, a free market economy!
Uh oh! Looks lik you have to actually NEGOTIATE with these people now! Not just their unelected leaders, but the actual people! With private ownership an organized labor unafraid of governmental persecution, you can bet your ass that you're going to start paying a hell of a lot more for your product. Plus, you may find them enacting environmental protections, driving up your costs even further.

So why on God's greed earth would an oil company want to deal with a sticky nest of private interests when it can deal with a dictator who can take care of business for them on their end? Free markets can get expensive, and oil is hard enough to obtain that you're not going to see all that much by way of competitive pricing, either.

So, do you care to revisit that hypothesis that it's in America's business interest to have privately-controlled oil in a free society?

Please note that I am not attempting to measure the moral or social implications of such reforms- but since you made it an issue of business, it should be clear that business is the one arena where reforms DON'T make sense.

Tmy · 28th January 2003, 09:12 AM

Forget oil. THis is about expanding Disney and McDonalds markets into the mid east!!!

I wonder if the Disney Alladin happymeal is considered blasphemous?

The Don · 28th January 2003, 09:17 AM

Or how about replacing a corrupt regime with the merest veneer of democracy. This way you can claim that you've delivered humanitarian benefits whilst still dealing with the same powerbrokers as before.

Just because you have democracy doesn't necessarily mean that you will have fair and equitable employment law.

28th January 2003, 05:31 AM	#1
King of the Americas Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: North Central Texas Posts: 5,071	The 'back door' policy.... ...that you DON'T know about, but that many people 'think' might be our real stance toward Iraq: "The purpose is to gain access to a middle east oil supplier that doesn't make us look hypocritcal toward our stances on freedom and democracy. We will replace the dictatorship in Iraq with a more freedom friendly democratic government, and secure a low price for their oil with a special contract constructed to limit their oil trade outside of their trade with us. The purpose is a long term one, such that this will allow us to sever our ties with Saudi Arabian oil, so that after Iraq we can invade Saudia Arabia and introduce a more democratic system there as well. We ARE serving democracy on a long term basis, but the apperance is that we are only interested incheap oil on the short term basis...well while that may appear to be true, one can not discount the ultimate purpose in making the middle east more free." (Guess who said it and when.) --- To Disarm Iraq or to rid Iraq of Saddam's rule? To give Iraq democratic control over their own oil supplies, OR to instill a puppet government that sells it to us exclusively at a low price?

28th January 2003, 06:49 AM	#2
Psiload Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,105	Re: The 'back door' policy.... Quote: Originally posted by King of the Americas ...that you DON'T know about, but that many people 'think' might be our real stance toward Iraq: "The purpose is to gain access to a middle east oil supplier that doesn't make us look hypocritcal toward our stances on freedom and democracy. We will replace the dictatorship in Iraq with a more freedom friendly democratic government, and secure a low price for their oil with a special contract constructed to limit their oil trade outside of their trade with us. The purpose is a long term one, such that this will allow us to sever our ties with Saudi Arabian oil, so that after Iraq we can invade Saudia Arabia and introduce a more democratic system there as well. We ARE serving democracy on a long term basis, but the apperance is that we are only interested incheap oil on the short term basis...well while that may appear to be true, one can not discount the ultimate purpose in making the middle east more free." (Guess who said it and when.) --- To Disarm Iraq or to rid Iraq of Saddam's rule? To give Iraq democratic control over their own oil supplies, OR to instill a puppet government that sells it to us exclusively at a low price? Sounds like your classic Win-Win situation. You give two extreme situations, the reality, as per usual, probably lies somewhere between the two. Furthermore, the end result of either "policy" would be an improvement over the current situation, both for the Iraqi people, as well as the US... and the rest of the world at large for that matter.
Psiload Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,105	__________________ You're not the boss of me.

28th January 2003, 07:37 AM	#3
King of the Americas Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: North Central Texas Posts: 5,071	To Psiload: The only thing we have to fear is Iraqi Nationalism... The protection of culture is more than just sacred to these peoples. An invasion of Americanism is likely to be looked upon as imperialistic. Any such invasion would be a costly one, frought with intended consequences.

28th January 2003, 07:44 AM	#4
Psiload Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,105	Re: To Psiload: Quote: Originally posted by King of the Americas The only thing we have to fear is Iraqi Nationalism... The protection of culture is more than just sacred to these peoples. An invasion of Americanism is likely to be looked upon as imperialistic. Any such invasion would be a costly one, frought with intended consequences. Yeah, those intended consequences can be a real bitch.
Psiload Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,105	__________________ You're not the boss of me.

28th January 2003, 08:01 AM	#5
Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Eastpointe Posts: 3,279	Re: The 'back door' policy.... Quote: Originally posted by King of the Americas ...that you DON'T know about, but that many people 'think' might be our real stance toward Iraq: "The purpose is to gain access to a middle east oil supplier that doesn't make us look hypocritcal toward our stances on freedom and democracy. We will replace the dictatorship in Iraq with a more freedom friendly democratic government, and secure a low price for their oil with a special contract constructed to limit their oil trade outside of their trade with us. The purpose is a long term one, such that this will allow us to sever our ties with Saudi Arabian oil, so that after Iraq we can invade Saudia Arabia and introduce a more democratic system there as well. We ARE serving democracy on a long term basis, but the apperance is that we are only interested incheap oil on the short term basis...well while that may appear to be true, one can not discount the ultimate purpose in making the middle east more free." (Guess who said it and when.) --- To Disarm Iraq or to rid Iraq of Saddam's rule? To give Iraq democratic control over their own oil supplies, OR to instill a puppet government that sells it to us exclusively at a low price? The biggest problem I see with your scenario? OPEC...
	__________________ "The path you take is not as important as the way you travel it. Science and logic are man's best tools when walking the path of truth because, unlike religion, science and logic have no stake in the destination." c0rbin: "All those waging fingers from the sideline might mean something if the hands behind them did more than moralize." They say the meek shall inherit the Earth. They're wrong. The resilient and versatile will...

28th January 2003, 09:06 AM	#6
Jocko Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, Chicago... it's a toddling town. Posts: 5,463	Re: The 'back door' policy.... Quote: Originally posted by King of the Americas We will replace the dictatorship in Iraq with a more freedom friendly democratic government, and secure a low price for their oil with a special contract constructed to limit their oil trade outside of their trade with us. This is the silliest thing I've heard out of you in quite a while. Think this through and disagree if you can: Okay, you're an American oil company. You deal with dictatorships and repressive monarchies in the middle east. The cost of doing business is relatively low because no one there has a right to strike for higher wages, or bargain collectively for those pesky benefits without risking execution. Business, for you (the American oil company), is good. The only premium you pay is the tributes to the corrput leadership of those nations. Pretty cheap prices for unfettered commerce. But look out! Along comes free speech and democratic reform! Not far behind that, a free market economy! Uh oh! Looks lik you have to actually NEGOTIATE with these people now! Not just their unelected leaders, but the actual people! With private ownership an organized labor unafraid of governmental persecution, you can bet your ass that you're going to start paying a hell of a lot more for your product. Plus, you may find them enacting environmental protections, driving up your costs even further. So why on God's greed earth would an oil company want to deal with a sticky nest of private interests when it can deal with a dictator who can take care of business for them on their end? Free markets can get expensive, and oil is hard enough to obtain that you're not going to see all that much by way of competitive pricing, either. So, do you care to revisit that hypothesis that it's in America's business interest to have privately-controlled oil in a free society? Please note that I am not attempting to measure the moral or social implications of such reforms- but since you made it an issue of business, it should be clear that business is the one arena where reforms DON'T make sense.
	__________________ You claimed that a turd is a turd. I clearly demonstrated that some turds are gold. You're wrong, Jocko. KOA proving me "wrong."

28th January 2003, 09:12 AM	#7
Tmy Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Republic of Massachusetts Posts: 6,489	Forget oil. THis is about expanding Disney and McDonalds markets into the mid east!!! I wonder if the Disney Alladin happymeal is considered blasphemous?

28th January 2003, 09:17 AM	#8
The Don Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cymru Posts: 8,255	Or how about replacing a corrupt regime with the merest veneer of democracy. This way you can claim that you've delivered humanitarian benefits whilst still dealing with the same powerbrokers as before. Just because you have democracy doesn't necessarily mean that you will have fair and equitable employment law.