No 2nd Resolution

[Ned]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
I've never understood this oil colony business.

Oil companies extract oil in order to make a profit. Iraq is a great place to extract oil. American oil companies can't go there now. If an American friendly regime is installed in Iraq, American oil companies could go there to extract oil. If that happens those companies and anybody highly placed in those companies will make large amounts of money.

Understand?

This should also allow you to understand why this administration is the one pushing for this.

I really hope any post-Saddam regime appropriately remembers its friends (the US and the UK) and pisses on the images of its enemies (France and Germany) in granting concessions.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Dino,

Well, I'm not Floyd, but here's my take on it:

We have essentially 2 (non-hypocritical) choices.

1) Accept that Pandora's Box is open, and that more and more nations will gain nuclear weapons, ala Pakistan & India. This is Floyd's position, right?

2) Alternatively, we could work out an agreement with the other nuclear powers that we will all disarm and cooperate in getting everyone else to disarm as well. The problem here is that such an agreement will be awfully difficult to get: a lot of countries see the power of nukes as a foil to US hegemony. But I think it's worth a try.

What we're doing now is clearly not working.

Arrian, for your information, that agreement is already in place. It is called the Nuclear Nonproliferaton Treaty.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

The goal is to halt proliferation while having the current nuclear powers reduce stockpiles to zero over time through negotiation.

You know, if this were clearly stated and pursued, I'd probably accept that argument. It would help, furthermore, if the powers began reducing their arsenals now. The thing is, this isn't the case. There are a number of nations that have acquired nuclear weapons... but we're only hounding two. We hounded a different two for a while, but have since backed off, particularly because we really need one of them to help us out (Pakistan) with something else.

But even that position requires the non-nuclear powers of the world to trust the big boys. Sure, we'll disarm, just as soon as we make sure none of you are trying to get nukes... which could drag on indefinitely, thus simply maintaining the nuclear balance of power as it stands now. Sure, from our point of view, that is better than unchecked proliferation, but it's not a real solution. At best, it's merely a delaying tactic.

-Arrian

[Edan]

Iraq is a great place to extract oil.

Only until Saddam decides it's better to use destroy his oil wells and those of his neighbors.

Besides, if this were "only about oil" wouldn't attacking Saudi Arabia or Kuwait make more sense, cause they would be a lot easier to defeat and have more oil?

[Arrian]

Ned,

Frist, clearly the Treaty doesn't work. None of the powers seem to be consistently pursuing it, ourselves included. Such a treaty requires real commitment on the part of the signatories to devote themselves to ridding the world of nukes, and the problem is I don't think any of them really want that.

Second, IIRC, that treaty does not include several current nuclear powers (since they acquired nukes after the treaty). Without their agreement, we get nowhere (Pakistan is rumored to be the major proliferator of nuclear weapons technology. The NKs are the missle exporters).

-Arrian

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Garth Vader Oil companies extract oil in order to make a profit. Iraq is a great place to extract oil. American oil companies can't go there now. If an American friendly regime is installed in Iraq, American oil companies could go there to extract oil. If that happens those companies and anybody highly placed in those companies will make large amounts of money.

Understand?

That is only so much mindless drivil. There are a ton of countries out their which don't allow foreigners to invest or own any of their productive oil resources. Saudi Arabia hasn't let foreigners invest in developing its reserves since the 1930's, Mexico nationalized (read:stole since they never payed the American investors for any of it) all oil production in the late 40's and hasn't let foreigners back since, and even our oh so good friends in Kuwait won't let foreigners invest one dime into buying oil reserves.

Do you see anyone pushing for war with these countries? This oil colony BS is made up by simple minded people for simple minded people.

[Tripledoc]

If I say that republicans are nazis will this discussion be rendered obsolete?

[Arrian]

Tripledoc,

No, we'd probably just ignore you. Please don't Sava the thread.

-Arrian

[Dinner]

Hey, I'm having a good time. Don't invoke that internet law yet.

[Tripledoc]

just checking.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ned,

Frist, clearly the Treaty doesn't work. None of the powers seem to be consistently pursuing it, ourselves included. Such a treaty requires real commitment on the part of the signatories to devote themselves to ridding the world of nukes, and the problem is I don't think any of them really want that.

Second, IIRC, that treaty does not include several current nuclear powers (since they acquired nukes after the treaty). Without their agreement, we get nowhere (Pakistan is rumored to be the major proliferator of nuclear weapons technology. The NKs are the missle exporters).

-Arrian

The treaty obligates the nuclear powers to reduce their stockpiles to zero through negotiation. Below is a quote from the UN site. I beleive India, Pakistan and Israel did not sign and are now nuclear powers. They ought to be grandfathered along with the original five powers. Regardless, the eventual aim is no nuclear weapons.

If no one is prepared to enforce the the treaty against violators, the NPT is, of course, a meaningless document - almost like the document upon which is written the UN Charter.

But the argument that the US is pursuing a double standard in seeking to enforce it is pure crap.

"The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. A total of 187 parties have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty's significance.

To further the goal of non-proliferation and as a confidence-building measure between States parties, the Treaty establishes a safeguards system under the responsibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Safeguards are used to verify compliance with the Treaty through inspections conducted by the IAEA. The Treaty promotes co-operation in the field of peaceful nuclear technology and equal access to this technology for all States parties, while safeguards prevent the diversion of fissile material for weapons use. "

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
If I say that republicans are nazis will this discussion be rendered obsolete?

If this is true, then all Democrats are communists and all Europeans, save for the Brits, are ******** wimps.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ned
I beleive India, Pakistan and Israel did not sign and are now nuclear powers.

That's correct. Cuba didn't sign either (but isn't a nuclear power). All the others signed.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Garth Vader
I've never understood this oil colony business.

Oil companies extract oil in order to make a profit. Iraq is a great place to extract oil. American oil companies can't go there now. If an American friendly regime is installed in Iraq, American oil companies could go there to extract oil. If that happens those companies and anybody highly placed in those companies will make large amounts of money.

Understand?

This should also allow you to understand why this administration is the one pushing for this.

And if you understood the economics of oil, you wouldn't be wasting your time on this silly theory.

[Garth Vader]

That is only so much mindless drivil.

And if you understood the economics of oil, you wouldn't be wasting your time on this silly theory.


I have done enough research to convince myself of the legitimacy of my claim. Since insults are your first argument, and a staunch unwillingness to consider a differing opinion your second, my time will be better spent doing anything other than continuing discourse with you.