U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should the US take $1.5 trillion in Iraqi oil?
Yes 67 47.52%
No 74 52.48%
Voters: 141. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-08-2016, 12:55 AM
 
Location: Iowa
3,083 posts, read 3,408,813 times
Reputation: 3989

Advertisements

Mofford is sane enough to know that he will be very hungry if the petrodollar system fails. If we don't stop borrowing money at some point our client republics are not going to trust in our money, there could be a run on the dollar and we could have 200% inflation within a very short period of time. When the OPEC players like SA &, Iraq decide to quit the petrodollar and dump US investments, that will be the end of our merry little empire. If you think we have a lot of poor people in America now, watch what happens when we have petrofailure.

ohhwanderlust, to answer your question, we should be trying to balance the budget here, desperate measures are needed. Modest cuts at home can be a good start, but what sounds better, cutting programs at home or shaking down the client states first? China steals corporate trade secrets, they steal and hack into anything they can get, and Russia too, and it hurts US companies. We should be more strict with our trade agreements. Why put the squeeze on our people at home, when we should first try to wring out as much as possible overseas? We have a 600 billion budget shortfall to take care of. Time to shake them all down, from A to Z, just a little here and there, whatever does the least harm to the world economy.

As for the invasion of Iraq, and GW Bush, it's not over yet, the petrodollar was sustained, Iraq was on the right path in 2009 when Bush left office. Had we kept some troops there as a republican president might have done, Iraq could be much further along today, and wealthy enough to start paying us back, by helping to restrain ISIS and Iranian expansion. Bush may have made some serious errors, but IMO, he should have done this in 2006 or 2007, partition Iraq into 3 smaller countries, Shia, Sunni & Kurdish Iraq. Each with their own government. I think that would have been better for the long term peace in Iraq. No matter how much you may hate GW Bush, we need to look forward with Iraq, and not have a policy of abandonment towards them. We did help to build up Saddam in the first place, so I think we sort of had a responsibility to remove him and attempt to introduce a more democratic system there. They have a lot of oil and it's just too dangerous to let Iran, Isis or any other rivals to gain control there.

You know with Trump, like any candidate, they say things to get attention sometimes and are almost always pretty vague on the exact economic policy details they will implement when they take office. Trump has been pretty bold and straightforward with many details that other candidates would normally cower from. His business background tends to make me believe he has great ability to analyze problems and solve them, and has better understanding of deal making and world politics, than Hillary Clinton.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 05-08-2016, 01:21 AM
 
501 posts, read 315,957 times
Reputation: 139
You're completely insane because you literally describe America as an empire, and seem convinced that this is some fact of life that's been going on for quite some time, despite, you know, NO ONE ELSE AGREEING WITH YOU

You're completely insane because you honestly defend Trump's suggestion to rob Iraq's oil wealth, an event that would make America into a criminal state, the US military into a criminal organization, and would require the US to kill tens of thousands of people, at the minimum.

You're insane because you rail on about "mafia-backed currencies" and "America already owns all the oil in the world because of petrodollars!" like you just finished reading InfoWars.com for the past 10 hours.

As for Trump's business background (dont' know why one's income should justify one's willingness to commit massive war crimes, but whatever), you know, if your'e so impressed with Trump's wealth, why not be impressed with Bill Gates, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, and Warren Buffet's wealth?

Bill Gates has 20x the amount of wealth of Trump, and he is a liberal Democrat apparently. He advocates increased taxes on the rich, redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor (increase EITC tax credit).

Warren Buffet ($67 billion) also proposes progressive taxation policies, NOT massive tax cuts on the rich like Trump proposes

George Soros ($25 billion) and Mark Zuckerberg ($35 billion)? Ditto.

Trump has a "mere" $4 billion, and has specifically said that Mitt Romney's wealth of $200 million is a joke compared to his wealth, so Romney's opinion should be dismissed. Well, following that logic, then we should dismiss Trump and go with Gates, Buffett, Soros, Zuckerberg, and so on, no?

And why not throw in Pierre Omidyar (Ebay, $9 billion) too?

I've identified a large number of left-wing billionaires who greatly exceed Trump's wealth. Maybe they know more about business than Trump and Clinton do?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 05-08-2016, 03:29 AM
 
26,154 posts, read 16,843,494 times
Reputation: 17235
Thumbs up *

A very good/strong excellent reply above!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rate this post positively
 
Old 05-08-2016, 07:10 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 54,262,246 times
Reputation: 24735
When we defeated Saddam Hussein we captured the Iraqi Oil Ministry. Using those records we reestablished private ownership of the nationalized oil fields to their previous, mostly American, owners. Effectively we have already stolen the Iraqi oil.


MISSION OCCOMPLISHED!
Rate this post positively
 
Old 05-09-2016, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Iowa
3,083 posts, read 3,408,813 times
Reputation: 3989
Quote:
Originally Posted by shihku7 View Post
You're insane because you rail on about "mafia-backed currencies" and "America already owns all the oil in the world because of petrodollars!" like you just finished reading InfoWars.com for the past 10 hours.

As for Trump's business background (dont' know why one's income should justify one's willingness to commit massive war crimes, but whatever), you know, if your'e so impressed with Trump's wealth, why not be impressed with Bill Gates, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, and Warren Buffet's wealth?

I've identified a large number of left-wing billionaires who greatly exceed Trump's wealth. Maybe they know more about business than Trump and Clinton do?
Well I see the poll is still getting some hits, and the Yes people are still on top. This gives me hope for the future. I never said anything about the US owning all the world's oil, I don't need a junior mint greenboy putting words in my mouth, son. The petrodollar system is based on oil producing countries voluntarily entering into an agreement whereby they sell oil (they own) in US dollars only. In return, they receive military protection from the US, and other perks, whatever they want within reason, and sometimes beyond reason for a 5 star client like Saudi Arabia, a free 911 bombing. It was nearing their 30th anniversary in the empire and they wanted a pleasure perk, that was the gift they chose, we are very accommodating to our clients. This system is what creates worldwide demand for the dollar, as oil is the world's most heavily traded and valuable commodity.

Hey kid......Gates, Buffet and all those other guys you mention, are NOT RUNNING for president. It's Trump vs Hillary. Not that I think Buffet would be a bad president, of those you mentioned, the others are too liberal. Raising taxes on the super rich should be on the table, the 2% tax cut Bush gave them has not yet been fully rolled back yet. The deficit for this year is 600 billion, it's a big S sandwich and we all have to take a bite. So does Iraq, If Obama was anything like Trump, in 2014 when ISIS and Iran were moving in on Baghdad, he should have proposed this deal. For a permanent 20% cut of Iraq's oil exports for the next 50 years, the US will protect Iraq's borders, build a permanent military base, and protect oil production facilities as much as possible. They would have jumped on that deal, and if they hesitated, then Obama should have sent the message that not only would we not protect them from ISIS, but withdraw UN support to that aim, until they signed the deal. Also with the Iran deal, it should have included mandatory provision that Iran switch to the petrodollar system and stop taking dirty mafia money from Russia and China.

Democrats can't do these things because they are weak on foreign policy, Hillary is weak and now with Bill being senile and fairly worthless to advise her, should she become president, I would expect a host of mistakes and lost opportunities to occur, as was her record as Sec of State. We spend tons of money for security to watch all the radical muslim immigrants arriving in the US. We spend almost as much as the budget shortfall of 600 billion on welfare for illegal immigrants, per year, see here,

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...llect-welfare/

Many US states are in poor financial shape from having to pay out all this welfare, California, Arizona and Kansas come to mind, if they could have this burden lifted, the economy would improve. If you just concentrated on deporting the ones that are not working and collecting welfare, just that alone would have a very positive economic effect, and reduce crime. The schools and hospitals are overburdened with illegals, relief is needed, Hillary is not relief, she is more burden.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 05-09-2016, 11:26 PM
 
Location: Iowa
3,083 posts, read 3,408,813 times
Reputation: 3989
Another role that Iraq could serve, what if, instead of shaking them down for 20%, we settle for less, perhaps 5%, but get Iraq to agree to allow the US to control the rate of oil production. They produce almost as much as Saudi Arabia, and could produce more than SA with the proper investment. They could act as a regulatory valve for the price of oil.

Therefore, we could more easily control Saudi Arabia, by flooding the market with oil when the price is too high, and severely cutting back production in Iraq, when the price goes too low, thus preserving our frack companies at home from going bankrupt. Nixon and Kissinger would be proud if we could pull this off, imagine after all these years, the US actually having the ability to control the price of oil all over the world, by getting nice and cozy with Iraq, and using ISIS/Iran as a tool of fear, and our military as a carrot to allow the US to control rate of production. Other ME countries like Libya might be ripe for a deal like this, we could probably get a 30% cut from them.

When you have the most powerful military in the world by a factor of 10, opportunity abounds. Let's get paid.

Make America great again!


EMPIRE State Building, NYC, courtesy of JD Rockefeller, American superhero.



Rate this post positively
 
Old 05-11-2016, 08:47 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Niagara Falls ON.
10,018 posts, read 11,301,440 times
Reputation: 8964
Quote:
Originally Posted by mofford View Post
Mofford is sane enough to know that he will be very hungry if the petrodollar system fails. If we don't stop borrowing money at some point our client republics are not going to trust in our money, there could be a run on the dollar and we could have 200% inflation within a very short period of time. When the OPEC players like SA &, Iraq decide to quit the petrodollar and dump US investments, that will be the end of our merry little empire. If you think we have a lot of poor people in America now, watch what happens when we have petrofailure.

ohhwanderlust, to answer your question, we should be trying to balance the budget here, desperate measures are needed. Modest cuts at home can be a good start, but what sounds better, cutting programs at home or shaking down the client states first? China steals corporate trade secrets, they steal and hack into anything they can get, and Russia too, and it hurts US companies. We should be more strict with our trade agreements. Why put the squeeze on our people at home, when we should first try to wring out as much as possible overseas? We have a 600 billion budget shortfall to take care of. Time to shake them all down, from A to Z, just a little here and there, whatever does the least harm to the world economy.

As for the invasion of Iraq, and GW Bush, it's not over yet, the petrodollar was sustained, Iraq was on the right path in 2009 when Bush left office. Had we kept some troops there as a republican president might have done, Iraq could be much further along today, and wealthy enough to start paying us back, by helping to restrain ISIS and Iranian expansion. Bush may have made some serious errors, but IMO, he should have done this in 2006 or 2007, partition Iraq into 3 smaller countries, Shia, Sunni & Kurdish Iraq. Each with their own government. I think that would have been better for the long term peace in Iraq. No matter how much you may hate GW Bush, we need to look forward with Iraq, and not have a policy of abandonment towards them. We did help to build up Saddam in the first place, so I think we sort of had a responsibility to remove him and attempt to introduce a more democratic system there. They have a lot of oil and it's just too dangerous to let Iran, Isis or any other rivals to gain control there.

You know with Drumpf, like any candidate, they say things to get attention sometimes and are almost always pretty vague on the exact economic policy details they will implement when they take office. Drumpf has been pretty bold and straightforward with many details that other candidates would normally cower from. His business background tends to make me believe he has great ability to analyze problems and solve them, and has better understanding of deal making and world politics, than Hillary Clinton.
The truth of the matter is that when, not if but when the USA loses it's empire, life will be far better for your average American than it is under the American Imperial system. The Average French person or UK citizen lives far far better than during the time those countries controlled much of the world. The loss of empire forces the country to start supplying it's self and become self sufficient in many ways. Empire almost always only benefits the 1% in any case. The cost of defending the empire is a big part of what ails the USA today. How much do you suppose it has cost the USA just caring for the Vietnam vets. You have hundreds of thousands of severely disturbed people wandering around the country never healing from their war experiences. Never kid yourselves, maintaining an empire alway means a continuous string of wars. Again, the 1% is the only winner, everyone else loses.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 05-11-2016, 09:53 PM
 
599 posts, read 340,276 times
Reputation: 609
Yes we should take it and Russia should take the oil in Syria to manage the money responsibly as they are the trusted ally of the Assad regime we should take Iraqi oil and use it to pay for U.S. veterans medical bills who fought in the Iraq War and were injured or suffer from PTSD.

Trump sounds like he would be great for the military though I am optimistic on if he can beat Hillary Clinton.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 05-11-2016, 10:28 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Niagara Falls ON.
10,018 posts, read 11,301,440 times
Reputation: 8964
Quote:
Originally Posted by PyroZach View Post
Yes we should take it and Russia should take the oil in Syria to manage the money responsibly as they are the trusted ally of the Assad regime we should take Iraqi oil and use it to pay for U.S. veterans medical bills who fought in the Iraq War and were injured or suffer from PTSD.

Drumpf sounds like he would be great for the military though I am optimistic on if he can beat Hillary Clinton.
Tell me, Why why why should Iraqis pay one single dime to a country that illegally invaded and completely destroyed their country????? The idea is just insane. Hitler did the same thing to France. He made France pay a huge amount of money as the upkeep got the German army of occupation. He then took these billions of Francs and used them to buy all the French industry and resources. I think it would be far more just for the USA to pay massive reparations to Iraq for US war crimes and crimes against humanity carried out in Iraq by the USA.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 05-13-2016, 09:58 PM
 
599 posts, read 340,276 times
Reputation: 609
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow View Post
Tell me, Why why why should Iraqis pay one single dime to a country that illegally invaded and completely destroyed their country????? The idea is just insane. Hitler did the same thing to France. He made France pay a huge amount of money as the upkeep got the German army of occupation. He then took these billions of Francs and used them to buy all the French industry and resources. I think it would be far more just for the USA to pay massive reparations to Iraq for US war crimes and crimes against humanity carried out in Iraq by the USA.
First of all I never supported the Iraq War and neither does Trump. I'm more agitated at the point that we keep having to go back into Iraq time and time again becaus they can't function without international assistance especially the Iraqi Military who in a fight outnumbered the Islamic State 10-1 with 2,300 Humvees stolen when an ISIS member fired a shot in the air. The U.S. wasted thousands of lives, trillions in dollars trying to bring democracy to a country being ran by a dictator and this is how they repay us? We give them democracy and train their soldiers to defend the people and they cower away even when they have the military equipment and manpower to fight allowing the Islamic State to take over a majority of Iraq until the U.S. can come into save the day. I say we give the U.S. veterans the money and the Iraqi people who had to suffer in a war we should have never been in.

Once again I never supported the war it was a disaster but now since we are back we will fix the mess we left behind once and for all.
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top