Why Ron Paul Is Wrong.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If it makes you feel better to think that politicians actually care about you, go ahead. You're wrong, but go ahead. I still think there was a better way to handle Iran in 1953 than to install a brutal dictator. And what gives us the right to thwart a freely elected government even if they do decide to enter the Soviet sphere? We let other countries fall to the Soviets, but alas, they had no oil, so no help from the US. Is it that hard to see that our foreign and defense policies have been corrupted by the Military Industrial Complex, as Eisenhower warned us? We've wasted too many lives lining the pockets of corporations and America is less secure now than anytime since the Cuban Missile Crisis. And we have lost plenty of freedom as well. But the banks and the corporations don't mind if America becomes a police state. They still own the government.

I still vote, but not for anyone I know will perpetuate the fraud that is being forced upon us. That means I won't be voting for Obama or Romney. I couldn't face myself in the morning or sleep at night if I supported either one of them. But I always vote.

This is the same argument you made before, and it completely ignores Cold War realities. BTW, Ike was the one who gave the go ahead for the coup: since his opinion counts for something with you.

[CuteOldGuy]

Ike wasn't always right, and I lived through the Cold War. I understand the realities. It doesn't make everything we did right. It may have been better for us to install a brutal dictator, but it wasn't better for the Iranians. Now we can't understand why they hate us. And I still think the only reason we installed the Shah was to maintain our oil supply. For our oil companies to sell to us. And reap huge profits. Which they use to bribe congress. So we screw up other countries, To keep the oil flowing.

But we will probably have to agree to disagree. I see your point, and it is not a stupid one, I just see things differently. Now things are as they are, and we need to deal with that. I think we need to change our tactics, but that is another thread.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Ike wasn't always right, and I lived through the Cold War. I understand the realities. It doesn't make everything we did right. It may have been better for us to install a brutal dictator, but it wasn't better for the Iranians. Now we can't understand why they hate us. And I still think the only reason we installed the Shah was to maintain our oil supply.

Actually, it’s the U.S. deal - not greed - with the Saudis that upset the balance in Iran. U.S. Aramco (Arabian-American Oil Company) contracted to split its profits 50-50 with the Saudis. By 1950, unrest in Iran forced the shah to recognize the power of the Majlis, Iran’s parliament, and the prime minister, National Front leader – Mossadeq. Mossadeq and others knew that Aramco (Arabian-American Oil Company) had recently contracted to split its profits with the Saudis on a 50-50 basis. Mossadeq approached Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) to negotiate a similar deal, but AIOC refused. When it came time (March 1951) for the Majlis to approve an unpopular addendum to the original AIOC contract, Mossadeq took action. The addendum was rejected, and he, with the support of the Majlis, nationalized AIOC. Britain and Iran continued to negotiate, but neither side would compromise. It was at this point that Truman sent Averill Harriman to Iran to intercede but to no avail.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

But we will probably have to agree to disagree. I see your point, and it is not a stupid one, I just see things differently.

I agree.

[dilbert firestorm]

IB,

in what way is Ron Paul wrong?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

IB,

in what way is Ron Paul wrong?

See posts #1 and #3. Were the U.S. to withdraw all of its armed forces from around the world and retreat within the confines of Kansas at Ft Riley, the theocracies and cults in the Muslim world would still have animus for the U.S. and the Western culture, e.g., Barbie Dolls, it represents.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yes, the US government is responsible for looking out for American interests first. But they don't. They look out for the interests of the Oil and Defense industries.




Sorry, IB. Money and lobbyists count more than citizens.

This is true.

The Defense Industry is a business, just like the Oil Industry.

Now I will say that cheap oil , helps the USofA more than your average bear.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yes, the US government is responsible for looking out for American interests first. But they don't. They look out for the interests of the Oil and Defense industries. We could have worked with the democratically elected government of Iran to support us against the Russians, but they were going want some oil profits for themselves. So fuck the democratically elected government, and let's install a ruthless dictator who will let our oil companies suck the country dry.

Sorry, IB. Money and lobbyists count more than citizens.

the US Government is looking out for the interest of America and the world's economy and the average person in the United States by keeping the free flow of oil going and not the Oil Industry's interest except by default.

cheap(or cheaper) oil isnt in the interest of the "oil industry" if you consider the interest to to be maximum profits.

the more expensive per barrel oil is, the more the oil industry profits.

Domestic production is what we need to encourage. Of course the more expensive per barrel oil is, the more domestic producers make, but the money is kept here, taxed and re-circulated and high wage jobs are created.

there is a certain combination of domestic production and price that would benefit the United States tremendously. obama et al just wants to waste billions and billions on solyndra. thats where the interest of the american people is being ignored.

one big thing we could do is get reimbursed by other countries for our military

[CuteOldGuy]

No blood for oil.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No blood for oil.

sloganeering is easy.

seems reasonable, but what would you fight for?

let iran close the straits of hormuz? throw another 15 percent of americans out of jobs? raise the price of oil to $200 a barrel?

have a depression?

what are you willing to fight about?

allowing free commerce isnt blood for oil

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

the US Government is looking out for the interest of America and the world's economy and the average person in the United States by keeping the free flow of oil going and not the Oil Industry's interest except by default. See you last sentence. ***

cheap(or cheaper) oil isnt in the interest of the "oil industry" if you consider the interest to to be maximum profits. But big oil wanted a piece of ME production

the more expensive per barrel oil is, the more the oil industry profits. Bingo...thus the threat of war benifits both industries. Defense & Oil. Follow the money!

Domestic production is what we need to encourage. Of course the more expensive per barrel oil is, the more domestic producers make, but the money is kept here, taxed and re-circulated and high wage jobs are created. You do realize that Refiners are shipping Refined gasoline overseas , thus raising prices here in the States.

there is a certain combination of domestic production and price that would benefit the United States tremendously. True obama et al just wants to waste billions and billions on solyndra. thats where the interest of the american people is being ignored. Not true. It is in our best interest to develope alternatives. Is that an ugly process? Yes. But some would argue necessary.

one big thing we could do is get reimbursed by other countries for our military*** agreed

cutiepie is still foolish btw....but not on this subject!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

IB,

in what way is Ron Paul wrong?

Ron Paul is to old and does not articulate very well. In that way he is wrong.

Other than that he is pretty spot on.

I think if IB really took a look at RP, he would not say he was wrong. He would say that RP advocates a different approach.

Both IB approach and RP approach have kinks but IB seems to discount the blowback in his views.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

cutiepie is still foolish btw....but not on this subject!

i appreciate you when you dont rant and rave and spray spittle and call names. is this the new you?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

i appreciate you when you dont rant and rave and spray spittle and call names. is this the new you?

I don't give a flip what you care about!

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

I don't give a flip what you care about!

thats the WTF that we all know and detest

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

sloganeering is easy.

seems reasonable, but what would you fight for?

let iran close the straits of hormuz? throw another 15 percent of americans out of jobs? raise the price of oil to $200 a barrel?

have a depression?

what are you willing to fight about?

allowing free commerce isnt blood for oil

How many lives per barrel of oil is acceptable? Why are we letting the oil companies dictate foreign policy? It's not like we get the oil for free when we send our soldiers to die for it, the oil companies get the oil, at the expense of American lives and tax money, and then SELL the oil to us.

It may be sloganeering, but I stand by it. NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!