You asked me to cite nations that have conquered other countries and stolen their oil in the last 100 years. I'll accept that it's not a comprehensive list, but those are three nations that fit the criteria.
I thought you said that whoever waved the cash could buy? Are you invoking some Communist scheme where the biggest nation takes all?
From memory, Lend-Lease was passed in July 1942 and the first goods were shipped in October
1942. The war started (for Britain and US manufacturers) in September 1939. Lend-Lease was not applied to all goods shipped, in fact right up until the end of the war a high proportion of goods shipped were either against cash or credit. Lend-Lease in itself does not say "free of charge", Lend means that the goods should be returned and lease refers to payment being made for usage. The fact is that Britain operated at an austerity level so as to be capable of making repayments to the USa for more than ten years after the war ended.
Aha! I think we've found the root of your confusion! We're not exactly talking about "individual responsibility" on this occasion, unless you're including international corporations under the heading of "individuals".
That seems to be a fault of your government!
Occassionally - I'll give you a few examples:
- we are not allowed to discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, sex, religion etc. etc. - We must be allowed freedom to access justice etc etc.
- We are provided with a police force to maintain law and order.
- We are provided with free but compulsary eduction etc.
You're still living under the misapprehension that the USa could survive in isolation? - better US minds than yours figured out a hundred years ago that you couldn't.
Regards, Greg.P.
Not a factual statement. Cite source or bugger off.
You seemed to be implying that you were ENTITLED to a 'share.' Actually, what you said was, and I quote, "...you're going to use up my share!"
Naturally, you are welcome to purchase as much oil as you would like at the going world market price. At which point it will, in fact, be 'yours.' But you'd best hurry before someone else buys it!
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (MrRathburne) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:
Greg Proctoscope is a well-known troll. Please do not feed the troll.
Sorry, I was unclear. The US was accused of imperialism and warmongering for the purposes of stealing oil from the Iraqis, and I was looking for an example of the U.S. ever conquering a country for the purpose of stealing oil in the last hundred years.
In the U.S., coprporations are individuals, in the legal sense. They may act as they see fit, absent blatant discrimination - and sometimes even then. The Government can compel an organisation to act 'legally' but not 'morally' - and there is a difference.
Nope, the fault of our people - we refuse to be bullied by governments...
Well, there's more profit in selling Hollywood to you lot, isn't there? We export the worst, and keep the best for ourselves...
The oil companies have the rights to extract and remove the Iraq oil - you're trying to tell me that they are doing that without a contract????
No, I'm telling you to post a link to a credible source corroborating your statement that Iraqi assets are being plundered by the U.S. government or be exposed as a crackpot.
True! And as a matter of fact, railroad related! In 1886, the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations were entitled to be considered as individuals under the law. It was a tax case, Santa Clara County Vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Company.
An unfortunate decision that has caused unbelievable corporate mayhem ever since. But of course, due to the limited liability they enjoy, corporations are clearly not the same as individuals. They are a creation and therefore protectorate of the state.
The B&O was involved with an early court decision regarding pollution as well. IIRC, a landowner next to the railroad claimed that smoke and cinders from the railroad were ruining his land and sued. The court decided with railroad and the industial revolution was on in North America. Oh well. I guess it is too late to turn back the clock on that one.
Regards,
DAve
And here, in a nutshell, is the reason so many people can't stand the USA, or it's citizens. And the reason so many people regard the USA and it's citizens as fair game.
If you don't remember, I'm not surprised, but I can't help you. Big John the Bootlegger (JFK's daddy) was American to Britain before WW II. Read a little, broaden your horizon.
And that's a big mistake.
It CAN change. Chief Justice Roger Taney once said, "no black man has rights a white man is bound to respect." _That's_ obviously changed since then (1850/60s). If that can change, so can Sta. Clara Cty. v. Southern Pacific. It only takes the right judges and social circumstances.
I'm not holding my breath that it will happen any time soon. Only saying that it IS possible.
Jay CNS&M North Shore Line - "First and fastest"
I believe they were discussing Papa Joe Kennedy, senator, bootlegger and sometimes ambassador (?), not John F.
Jay CNS&M North Shore Line - "First and fastest"
DP>>
DP>> Dunter Powries wrote: DP>>
DP>> > > MrRathburne wrote:
DP>> > > > You are a patheic loser, worrying about how much oil a DP>> > > > country 10000 miles away uses!! Get a life and get off the DP>> > >meds you stoner.
DP>> > > Use your own oil resources only, and I'll stop worrying about DP>when you're DP>> > going to use up my share!
DP>> > Since when do you get a share? Is this some sort of Socialist DP>concept? Has DP>> > OPEC been informed? DP>>
DP>> I thought you said that whoever waved the cash could buy? Are you DP>invoking some DP>> Communist scheme where the biggest nation takes all?
DP>You seemed to be implying that you were ENTITLED to a 'share.' DP>Actually, what you said was, and I quote, "...you're going to use up DP>my share!"
DP>Naturally, you are welcome to purchase as much oil as you would like DP>at the going world market price. At which point it will, in fact, be DP>'yours.' But you'd best hurry before someone else buys it!
Indeed. If the motivation was for the US to obtain Iraqi oil, it would have been cheaper to buy it at the market rate than to go to war over it.
Jeff
OH, JOE. JFK's dad was Joe. So, there, we've established that YOU didn't even know his name. He was 'ambassador' to Britain, as opposed to an American in Britain, of whom there were been many over the course of the twentieth century. Incidentally, no one has actually SAID what Joseph Kennedy is supposed to have said or done to have started World War II, let alone cited an authoritative source to support their particular crackpottery. It seems to me that Europeans - and I say this as a lapsed Englishman, myself - have been perfectly brilliant at devising and executing their own conflicts for many hundreds of years without any outside assistance at all.
Do YOU have any idea why?
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.