Jump to content

daddyhominum

Member
  • Posts

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by daddyhominum

  1. My understanding is that it is de riguer to report you to the monitor first. I don't want to break with tradition when I am already circumscribed for poor posting style. You are right. My bad and my apology. I read the article in detail after posting my reaction your ideological linking of issues. My reading of the article is that the authors illustrate the relationship between the US economy and European or welfare economies is more a question of choice then advantage. Americans work longer hours but,overall, receive far less benefit for their efforts when averaged according to authors comments in the last two pages.
  2. My daughter came home from school today with a question for her dear, old Dad. “Our PoliSci professors at the U of Lethbridge run a web site called MapleLeaf Web which is a resource for the study of Canadian politics”, she began, “ A few days ago someone posted the following as part of a discussion: "Muslims blow up buildings and buses. " Am i wrong? No because it happens on a daily basis.” A few of us have been discussing the question, “Is he wrong in that statement?” “Did the group decide on an answer”, I asked. “ Well” she said, “Most of us think he is right. They do blow up stuff” “How does that make you feel”, I asked, “to know that Muslims blow things up?” “I don’t think I want to be around Muslims”, she answered, “They’re crazy!” “Do the others feel like that?” I wondered. “Worse”, she said. “Bob says he is going to drop out and join the Canadian Army so he can go to Afghanistan and kill the bastards. Julia reckons they should be sent back where they came from or at least restricted to special areas. None of us can understand why the government doesn’t do something about the murderous fifth column of Muslims.” “Do you hate Muslims because they bomb?” I said. “No”, she said, “I don’t hate them. I just want them gone from my country with their bombs and sharia and theocratic rule. Preferably alive but gone anyway” “Do you remember that summer job you had two years ago with the publishing company?” I enquired., “ Your boss had an odd name. What was it again?” “Hamid, something,” she said, “His last name was unpronounceable so I don’t remember it” “I thought he was Muslim”, I said. “Oh no,” she replied, “He was a real sweetie, wouldn’t harm a fly, great boss. He was an Arab, I think, from Saudi Arabia. I loved his little girls” “ Do you think he would bomb anyone?” “Don’t be ridiculous!” she said. “But he was Muslim and so was his wife and those lovely children”, I told her. “He couldn’t have been a Muslim. He was just like you and I”, she protested. “Perhaps the statement is wrong, then,” I suggested, “After all, if Hamid is a Muslim but Hamid is not a bomber, then the statement that Muslims are bombers can’t be true. That is deductive logic. If Muslims are bombers and Hamid is Muslim, then Hamid must be a bomber. On the other hand, if Hamid is not a bomber, then the statement is false” “But”, she said, “Some Muslims do bomb. We read it every day.” “Of course, “ I said, "Some Muslims do bad things just like people in all cultures and ethnicities. But if we say all members of a group are the same as one person in a group in all respects, we are being racists. But Canada is a nation of individuals with the rule of law and protection for the rights of minorities within that law. Racists hate that equality and strive to obtain a special position.” She said, “ I guess the statement, “Muslims blow up buildings and buses.” is wrong in fact because only some people who are Muslims bomb. The vast majority are people of like Hamid, kind and gentle, and productive citizens. I will bring this up tomorrow when we sit talking. I am not about to let posters on Maple Leaf Web persuade my friends to hate people I love and respect by making false statements. That is really wrong” “I think you should start looking for a new school for next year. You’re not going to get a good education at a University that shelters and encourages racists.” (Disclaimer: The above is entirely fictitious and posted only for the purposes of educating and informing) LOL!!
  3. You state in your post, “So, you claim: ”"A reasonable person would recognize that your statement breached the requirements of Canadian law regarding hate speech in that it intended to encourage hate against an identifiable religious group in Canada and worldwide."” I think you're completely wrong. I think a reasonable person would recognize the opposite. First of all, note the word "Historically" in my comment. Historically, Islam *was* spread by military means in many instances. I don't see that it's hateful to modern-day Muslims to point out this fact, any more than it's hateful to modern-day Catholics to point out that a large number of women were tortured and murdered because of Catholic ideology. It might make them unhappy to talk about it, but that doesn't change the truth of it.” I said your statement breached the law. You said your statement did the opposite. I am new to the concept of an ‘opposite’ to the breaching of a law. I’ll presume you mean that it does not breach section 319 (2). You go on to say7: “First of all, note the word "Historically" in my comment. Historically, Islam *was* spread by military means in many instances. I don't see that it's hateful to modern-day Muslims to point out this fact, any more than it's hateful to modern-day Catholics to point out that a large number of women were tortured and murdered because of Catholic ideology. It might make them unhappy to talk about it, but that doesn't change the truth of it.” Is that all you said? Of course not! You have begun the racist’s dance around accountability for your words Let me paraphrase for you for the sake of clarity: in fact, you said that the only people who were Muslims had been forced to join the religion. The null hypotheses for that bit of ridiculous fact is that one person historically became a Muslim of their own free will. As I have already posted in this thread about a wonderful Canadian woman who did just that, became a respected scholar and was elected to lead a major North American body of Muslims, there is ample proof that your statement is false. You spring into the next step of the racist dance and claim that the Muslim faith “was” spread by force of arms in the past. But that isn’t what you said in your statement, which clearly says, “is”. (It’s the Religion of Peace” means it is now.) Very typical of racists argument is to try to change the meaning of the statement by adding conditions and codicils after the fact. Your next step in the dance is to rely on your pretence that you were speaking of the past to demonstrate that you have a defense in truth as provided by section 319(3). But, as I have just illustrated, your truth does not withstand an examination of its null hypotheses. Ergo, you have not made a true statement and have no defense under that part of the law. Then you state: “I have reasonable grounds to believe my statement true. From the time of Mohammed up to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Islam has spread at least in part through conquest and violence.” More dancing by the racist thinker! Your original statement did not allow for any means other then force for conversion to Islam. Now you say “in part” That is the kind of adjustment that racists make when called out for their despicable, evil and illegal public posts. They don’t change their minds but the scramble to cover their ass(es). You begin again with new racism: ”And while Islam apparently condemns forced conversion, the recent experience of the captured reporters suggests that it's a somewhat flexible rule. As does this-- http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=763 Swordpoint conversion at the hands of Muslims, both historic and present-day, seems like justifiable response to Drea's question of what's the big deal, does it not?” With the intent to slander, because one group of Muslim today, or 100,000 Muslims in a war long ago force conversion on people, you accuse all Muslims of doing so. That is the very heart of racism and bigotry; to characterize an identifiable group by a hateful practice based on the actions of some members of the group. You finish with: “ So there you go. While my comment might not make Muslims very *happy*, it's founded on information which I believe is accurate, is relevant to current events, and is pertinant to this discussion. In short, while you might dislike what I said, I think it's pretty clear that it's not described by the definition of hate propaganda written in the Criminal Code.” I have proven by applying the null hypothesis that your claim that Muslims were forced to join the religion is untrue. I have identified the occasions where you have altered your original statement in an attempt to reduce the impact of the remark in case you are ever asked to defend it in law. And I have pointed out that your comments regarding forced conversion reflect the very essence of racism in characterizing an entire group on the basis of the actions of part of the group. You even say that your comments might not make Muslims happy, thus admitting that your comments are hateful toward them. Your reply, reliant on easily disproved claims of fact, characterizing an entire religious group with engaging in hateful practices, is as full a confession of guilt under Section 319 (2) as any law enforcement agency or human rights tribunal is ever likely to see. By the way, I don’t simply dislike your racism. I find it abhorrent and disgusting.
  4. I’ll play one more time. Avoiding Invision for to avoid more debateers skirting around issues by critiquing my quoting skills instead of my reasoning, I will construct this post in Word and copy and paste it to the Invision board. Any of you who feel it necessary to continue with your attack on my posting style will please quote an authority such as the Chicago Manual of Style in support of your critique in an entirely new thread. I am all in favour of “reasonable”, Kimmy. In your post,#10 of this thread on August 28, 2006, you said; “Historically, it's the Religion of Peace because everybody who wouldn't sign up is dead.” As that is obvious nonsense, why did you post the statement? If it was a joke, why didn’t you include an “LOL” or <G> or something to signal that it was a joke. If it was a joke, why would you make a joke about a religion that was hurtful to members of that religion, particularly in the context of the thread. A reasonable person in the context of this thread, would infer that you were ignorant about the religion, particularly about how people came to belong to it, that you despised the religion enough to make a sarcastic reference to its claim of being a religion of peace, and that you intended you readers to find a reason to dislike, even hate, followers of Islam. A reasonable person would recognize that your statement breached the requirements of Canadian law regarding hate speech in that it intended to encourage hate against an identifiable religious group in Canada and worldwide. I have been specific with respect to fact and clear about my line of reasoning with respect to this one statement. I look forward to your specific facts and clear line of reasoning demonstrating that I am wrong.
  5. How embarrassing for you, then, that you are unable to come up with any in your discussions here, resorting to snide emotionalisms, pathetic insults, and sanctimonious threats. May I suggest, bearing the above in mind, that you leave and go live life in your splendid world where everyone is just like you, thinks like you, believes as you do, and never says a discouraging word? You won't be missed. I note that you do not respond to my reference to the fact of North American Islam electing a non-Arabic, non-immigrant Canadian as a leader to counter your bigoted claim that Muslimas in North America are all suspects of terror and sedition, paid for by the Saudi government and dominated by immigrants. I note that you accuse me of emotionalism, insult and threats but are unable to quote me to that effect. Strawmen argument and ad hominem are the favored tools of the racist mind though the seem meaningless to the rational reader. OTOH , I agree with your last sentence. Regardless of which bulletin board is employed, I cannot remain as a participant in a group that shelters bigoted racists espousing restriction of the human rights of others because of the others ethnicity or religion. And, as you suggested in an earlier post, it is probably better for me to direct my complaints against racism in a more official manner.
  6. Actually this Invision board drives me nuts.. I find it cumberson and greatly prefer vbulletin. Also, in my non-virtual life, I don't waste time trying to have a discussion with bigots or racists and I greatly prefer discussions based on fact to those based on beliefs. In an interesting fact, tangentially related to the foolish belief that Canadians are somehow threatened by others who are Muslim and come from foreign countries, you may be amused to learn that a woman born in Kitchener, Ontario, of Canadian mixed ethnicity European stock, a highly respected scholar, and teacher, who converted to Islam while her lawyer sister converted to Judaism, and her lawyer brother remained Catholic, has been elected President of one of the leading Muslim umbrella organizations in the USA and North America. http://tinyurl.com/jxnyw It amuses me to speculate how that event must spin the irrational fears you have about foreigners and foreign religions taking over WASP Canada. It also amuses me to think how many holidays the three siblings get to celebrate each year.
  7. The Saudi government does not fund the spread of Islam under any banner. That is done by charities within Saudi Arabia You are incorrect . .I have to choose between accepting your opinion or the studied report I quoted. Your quote is about the educational practices in Islamic nations rather then the Muslims in Canada. Stop being disengenous. Your wasting time. Stay focussed. After observing the history of Christendom's conversion of the idolaters they found as they conquered peoples around the world, one really needs to be blind to claim innocence for the Christian faith and ascribe evil to others. In fact believing that Muslims are worse then Christians in instigating hate around the world is a shocking denial of observable facts The bullshit is your claim, in the face of evidence to the contrary, that SA funds mosques etc. directly. And it is not a fact that "we" are within our rights to ban innocent peole from speaking or immigrating to Canada because we don't like their beliefs. It is not coincidence that after years of pouring billions into madrasses schools in Pakistan that Pakistan has become a hotbed of militant anti-western, anti-jewish fundamentalist Islam. It is not coincidence that after years of ignoring the problem and allowing Saudi Arabia funded preachers to largely take over their mosques that the British have a major problem now with home-grown Islamic terrorism. It is not coincidence that most of hte 911 hijackers were Saudis. Wahhabism might hate other Muslims but it hates us more. Was it the SA government and Wahabism then that caused the Indian Raj to split into India and Pakistan? Pakistan was borne out of a desire to have a state ruled by Islam. Religious fanaticism exists in every country and deaths resulted from the Catholicism of the IRA, the cruelty of David Koresh, the bombs of the Irgun, the self-immolation of Buddhist priests and the desparate Kamikaze pilots of WW2. It isn't a special feature of any one belief system. More commonly by attacking nations that Muslims believe are part of the land of the Ummah. One thing is clear in recent years that you cannot win the hearts and minds of others by dropping bombs on them and invading their lands. Perhaps we should study the techniques you claim that the Saudi's use to influence people without shooting at them ? Or do you suppose that only Muslims would stoop to peaceful means to win the hearts and minds of people?
  8. Islamic Muslims ? as compared to what? Suspects with regard to what? It isn't criminal but it is certainly silly at the least and ignorant at best. I gather that you consider me part of the brotherhood of man which I accept. However, neither my Muslim brothers, my Jewish brothers, my Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroasteran, Jain, Sikh, Animist, Atheist or myriads of other brothers who are believers are responsible for all the world's havoc. You said; In the context of this thread, it is reasonable for me to infer that you are laying a charge of treason against groups that"crap on Canadians and their values" and to infer that you mean Muslims, an identifiable religious group. I am also reasonable to infer that you are encouraging hatred toward groups that you unjustly accuse of 'crapping on Canadian values' because of their religious beliefs. If you were as specific in your statements about groups as I have been about your charges that might be desirable. However, because I don't ask for charges to be lain against all hate-mongers does not mean that I must ignore them. See: http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issu...ate_a_crime.cfm
  9. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/175/5/464 "The reports, collectively entitled The Future of Emergency Care, are the first extensive studies of US emergency care in the past 40 years. They present a bleak picture: a half million times a year — about once a minute — ambulances carrying critically ill patients are diverted from full EDs to more distant sites. Once stabilized, patients can wait several hours, even days, on gurneys in ED hallways for inpatient beds. On-call specialists are in short supply because of the cost of malpractice insurance and the difficulty of collecting payment from uninsured patients." Apparently there are waiting lists for emergency services in the USA system. If forced to choose, I prefer the canadian system of waiting lists for surgery, especially elective surgery.
  10. I assume that anyone who responds is proven to be a lefty? Hard to imagine that anyone who trys to set silly traps like that is open-minded about anything. But here is the key question you must answer: The poor in Sweden get 38% of the US median income so what percent of the Swedish income is 38% of the US income? After all, the Swedish poor live in Sweden so determining how well off they would be in the USA with on their Swedish income is rather pointless, isn't it. Yours in tested leftness, Mr McCarthy
  11. I assume that anyone who responds is proven to be a lefty? Hard to imagine that anyone who trys to set silly traps like that is open-minded about anything. But here is the key question you must answer: The poor in Sweden get 38% of the US median income so what percent of the Swedish income is 38% of the US income? After all, the Swedish poor live in Sweden so determining how well off they would be in the USA with on their Swedish income is rather pointless, isn't it. Yours in tested leftness, Mr McCarthy
  12. The Charter is a codification of pre-existing common law, tradition and the concepts of the classical liberal thought. It also embodies the United Nations Charter of Human Rights which Canada helped create and signed while Trudeau was a boy in short pants. As such, the Charter is an embodiment of Canadian values, traditions and customs with respect human rights and freedoms. Perhaps I can read in another thread which Canadian values or traditions or customs the Charter is "destructive" toward. The fear of the "other" is the basis for almost all hatred. Fear of the other can be quickly overcome by getting to know the other. Everyone is welcome in a mosque. If anyone fears the Canadians who follow Islam attended the mosque and made an effort to appreciate the beliefs of the other the fear and hate would be quickly resolved. IMO, when someone lays a charge or implies treasonous behaviour against an identifiable group such as Canadians of the Moslem faith, those statements are very close to prescription by Canada's hate laws. How much better to seek rapprochment then reasons to hate.
  13. I was surprised by such a transparent attempt to escape responsibility. Nasrullah was well aware of Israeli policies and very well aware of Israel's response to the kidnapping in Gaza just weeks before. He had to know what the potential response could be. Did he think Hezbollah could manage the IDF and defeat them while terrifying Israelis with Katyushas? Or did he think he could draw Syria and Iran directly into the battle? If he was coach of the Vancouver Canucks I would expect to see him gone ASAP.
  14. The Saudi government does not fund the spread of Islam under any banner. That is done by charities within Saudi Arabia (See: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/...articleID=12218 The Saudi government has announced and, in some cases, undertaken some reform efforts to address Islamic extremism. For example, the government is undertaking educational and religious reforms, including revising textbooks and conducting a 3-year enlightenment program, to purge extremism and intolerance from religious education. However, US agencies do not know the extent of the Saudi government's efforts to limit the activities of Saudi sources that have allegedly propagated Islamic extremism outside of Saudi Arabia. Sources: General Accounting Office, US Department of State, US Department of Defense, National Security Institute, National Association of Chiefs of Police Terrorism Committee The activities of Islamic charities in the West are much the same as the activities of Christiean charities in non- Christian countries, even to the encouragement to overthrow existing governments. Those activities are protected in Canada by the Charter of Rights and are subject to the laws of Canada, including the so-called hate speech laws. Wahabism is only one influence on Islamic militants and it directs most of its hatred against Moslems who believe differently from them and are thus, heretics, deserving of death and some more against fellow Muslims not living as the Prophet did but adopting Western, particularly US, ways. The interesting thing about Wahabism and the rest of the Islamic militants is that most of their violence is turned toward each other because only one interpretation of the Koran can be true, and all those who fail to follow the Koran as correctly understood, deserve to die as apostates. OTOH, non-Muslims are not to be killed unless they do harm to Islam.
  15. I expect that you err in ascribing a political position to anti-Americanism. While it is not a great problem in Canada, you would find that many Conservatives in our history were "anti-American". Perhaps John A., the founding Prime Minister, most notably among them. But on the matter of whether the USA bullies Canada, don't you think that the recent battle over the application of NAFTA to softwood trade was an instance of US bullying ? After all, the decisions by all the various appeal processes were overwhelmingly in favor of Canada's position and yet Canada had to agree to make an arrangement outside the NAFTA to maintain trade. I don't see how the stubborn refusal by the US to abide by the agreements they had signed and the imposition of unfair tariffs could be anything other then bullying. Perhaps sometimes bullying is just good business ?
  16. Every sentence herein has been thoroughly deunked. Any one in particular you need a link to? Dear theloniusfleabag, Yes. Only the first sentence contains statement of fact so links that establish that the USA did not lead the struggle to sanction Iragi oil and another that establishes that the USA has no intention of calling for sanctions against Iran would be helpful As the rest of my words that you quoted are clearly opinion, it is not possible to debunk them.
  17. I am glad you brought up this issue. Oil in the ground is like money in the bank. The faster it goes out, the quicker you become broke whether oil company or producing country. At the same time, as price goes up, more oil becomes available as higher cost oil becomes economic as has happened with the Alberta Tar Sands. And that suggests that, longer term, higher oil prices are necessary to replace diminishing reserves. OTOH, the US led in the fight to sanction Iraqi oil sales and suggestions have been made that the USA will eventually call for restrictions on the sale of Iranian oil. I believe that the US wants a free flow of oil up to the point where it sees a strategic danger of harm to itself. I would rather believe that the USA went into Iraq to provide people with the human rights their citizens enjoy but I believe their claim that Iraq under Hussein was an imminent danger to peace in the region.
  18. The Table for current production indicates a surplus capacity for Saudi Arabia of 1300 t0 1800 thousand barrels per day for Saudi Arabia. (Energy Information Administration\Short-Term Energy Outlook -- August 2006) There is an effect on oil price by war, hurricane and many other events. I view that as due to fear rather then oil production or real change of demand and supply but there is an effect Or paid Saddam off rather than spend $200+ billion invading a country. I agree. And it may have been a better strategy to do that accompanied by an aggressive campaign to improve human rights. I wonder what would have happened if sanctions had been reduced in a quid pro quo for a slow increase in human rights for Iraqis.
  19. Economic theory and observation both firmly agree that a shortage of supply increases price in an open market. Oil markets are clearly free markets because one can purchase oil at any time from a multiple supplier source. That is what OPEC does...it controls the supply to maintain a price range preferred by producers and eliminate price competition among large suppliers. That is supply management. A nation might restrict usage to its own nationals (there is no practical way to enforce a trade restriction once a commodity has been shipped outside the national boder) thus removing itself from the world market. However, the consequence would inevitably be prices above the world free market and consequent loss of competitiveness. Second: oil is only fungible once it leaves the ground and enters the market. There's big bucks to be made for anyone who gets to decide when to take the stuff out. That's why were seeing a lot more states (like China) trying to tie up reserves. Opec determines the rate of production for all producers whose production can seriously affect the world price for oil. Forward contracts are subject to price fluctuations. Oil markets operate on forward contracts because of the infra structure expenses. Chinese companies can't afford to build a pipeline to Iran unless they know the will have sufficient product to pay for the expense of construction and operation. China has always had forward contracts. What has changed over the past 20 years is the level of demand form China particularly, also India and all the other Asian countries with burgeoning development. Almost certainly, all forward contracts are subject to the world price as determined by Opec or a benchmarh like the price of West Texas Crude. So the reserves are really advanced sales at whatever price the amrket demands. There is also likely a "subject to prior sale" clause that is common for advance sales to protect the seller from a buyer who refuses shipment. Contracts are not guarantees of shipment under all conditions. Controlling a supply when a free market exists can also reduce supply and increase the market price at the cost of reduced production. The National Energy policy proposed by the Trudeau government was intended to control production and prices but was firmly and vehemently resisted because it would reduce production, therefore earnings, for the producers, while reducing competitiveness. Canada manages any number of agricultural products through supply management and the result is increased cost to the Canadian consumer and a ruination of agricultural competitiveness in free world markets. In summary, the function of the free market is to balance supply and demand through the mechanism of price changes . The function of OPEC is to set the supply by controlling production. Part of the market is the existence of forward contracts that provide security for the cost of infrastructure investment but do not alter the role of the pricing/production mechanism for oil nor guarantee supply under all conditions. Forward contracts are an essential part, past and present, of oil production financing. Supply management of oil or gas within a single nation is possible but more costly then buying from the world market at a competitive price. National governments usually do restrict the supply of some portion of national oil reserves for strategic reasons, that is, world events where the supply of oil is severly restricted or stopped. Even nations with no oil would have strategic reserves in storage. Strategic reserves are not part of the world oil reserves calculations because they are not ever available to the free market. For oil to be an income earner it must be sold by the producing country to fill the human needs of citizens. So it really doesn't matter who owns the oil because you can't eat it. And once you sell it to buy some beans you have no control over the final destination. If you don't sell it, you don't get beans.
  20. The oil companies do not determine oil prices in the world market. The price of oil is controlled by production rate which is determined by the OPEC Cartel by controlling production. There is sufficient elastic in oil production to offset any lost production from any single producer except Saudi Arabia. If the cartel wanted the price to drop, they simply increase production. The role of OPEC is to protect the oil producing nations from competitive production that would drive down price. As the price of oil is determined by OPEC production rates, the US invasion can't affect price or oil company profits. It doesn't matter who bought oil from where because all oil is available to the entity willing to pay for it once it is on a ship or in a pipeline. The producing country can't determine the final user of their oil production.
  21. What does this mean? And there is this: http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=1264 Iranian President vows to quit UN and wipe out Israel MIL/Agencies, Apr 25, 2006. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeated his vow that Iran would wipe out Israel off the world map. He continued to say "We cannot allow this fake regime of Israel to exist any more."
  22. My recollection is that the idea of universality was that everyone received the same from government and a progressive tax system taxed back benefits from those who did not require them. Seems sensible to me.
  23. My argument does not depend on the Iraq situation. My reasoning is based on facts about how the oil market works. I should be very happy for you to describe one way in which the oil from Iraq can avoid the normal trade considerations. If there is one single instance of my prenmises or reasoning being in error, it would mean my argument is faulty. So I only need to hear one facet that would demonstrate my argument is wrong.
  24. Why couldn't the USA, or anyone, simply buy Iraqi oil from any dealer willing to sell them the oil after it left Iraq? BP buys the oil in Iraq, loads it on a tanker and sells it to a refiery in New Orleans after it has left Iraqi waters. It is likely that tankerloads of oil are often sold by brokers as they journey across the ocean, perhaps sold many times, on the trip. That is what often happens with other commodities. That is how trade normally operates in a free market.
  25. I often read that the reason for the USA-led Coalition attack on Iraq was oil. From those readings I have surmised that many people believe that the war in Iraq , and especially the purpose of the USA in that war, was to secure the oil production output of Iraq for the USA and/or allies. Some individuals on all sides of the political spectrum put this forward as the proximate cause of the attack and the reason for the occupation forces staying in Iraq. The claim is particularly favored by Arabic and Muslim writers and by those who find President Bush anathema. I don't believe the charge can be supported by the facts concerning world trade in oil and the economic needs of people in both selling and buying nations. I would welcome someone correcting my observation and reasoning in the matter. My first premise is that all nations need to exploit resources available for income. That oil producing nations must produce and sell oil to support their people. Iraq, like other oil-rich countries, need to sell the oil it produces to provide income for citizens and government. Neither Saddam Hussein nor the current Iraqi government can avoid selling oil. My second premise is that oil that is sold outside the borders of any producing nation is the property of the purchaser who is free to do whatever he wishes with the oil. Whether the oil is sold by Saddam or the current government, once the oil has left Iraq it may end up anywhere. My third premise is that the international oil market is a free market in which oil is bought and sold for an agreed price between contracting bodies and that all contracts are determined primarily by market conditions as influenced by demand and supply in the usual manner. My fourth premise is that negotiating a contract for oil based on a free market would not distinguish among possible sources except for those pertaining to economic value of the oil, including shipping and processing considerations. I conclude that given that anyone can purchase oil from anywhere for an agreed upon contract with respect to price, no nation would engage in a war to obtain something freely available through normal trade. Therefore, oil cannot be the reason that the US and the rest of the Coalition have engaged in a hugely expensive war in Iraq. Dennis
×
×
  • Create New...