Iraq

[Anathema]

In Germany, jews weren't considered humans. In Athens, slaves weren't considered civilians. There was free trade for those who were considered humans and civilians.

[Edric O]

Obviously, we disagree on the definition of capitalism...

That's ok. Let's not argue semantics.

And you STILL avoided my question! IF a country wants out of capitalism, do you allow them to seek a better life for themselves? Or do you hypocritically force them to stay capitalist?

[emprworm]

i am not arguing semantics at all. I am demonstrating that any group of free people will be capitalistic. the two go hand in hand. history shows this.

in every single example you cited, those who were 'free' were also capitalistic. People want to have the freedom to sell/buy/trade their own private property with others at their own leisure. Who would possibly want to vote this away? lol. To answer your question, if people voted to strip themselves of their right to sell/buy/trade their own private property with others at their own leisure then sure, let them. But don't penalize their decsendants who may not want it at all. So long as there is always an "out" for the people to change it, then i dont care. What I would never support is people voting to lose their right to vote. Because all those countless generations that follow the idiots that do such a thing would have no freedom to and would pay the penalty for the idiocy of their ancestors.

[Acriku]

If you know anything about US electorial elections, you would know the people vote for the president in an indirect manner. Each state counts its votes and whoever wins gets the state's reps, a lot from Florida and California, then they add up all the reps and whoever has the most they win. Bush had the most, he won. It was the first time this happened, but the system was set up to where it was possible, but it took a while to happen.

[Anathema]

Thank you for telling something we didn't know anything about ::).

[Edric O]

I know that, Acriku. That's why I think the US electoral system is ridiculous and out-dated. Just my opinion.

Emprworm, you don't seem to accept the fact that capitalism is NOT inscribed in human nature. It is only a system like any other. There's nothing "natural" about it. We TEACH people to be capitalists, it is NOT a part of who they are!!

The funny thing about your argument is that 500 years ago most people said the same thing about absolute monarchies. And look where they are now.

People DO NOT want capitalism. They want what's best for them. Capitalism is not the end-all world order. It WILL crumble into dust, like every other system before it.

You're a Christian, right? So here's what we're gonna do. If we both go to heaven, we must find each other and (if at all possible) watch political developments on Earth. You will see the inevitable fall of capitalism after a few centuries and I will be proven right. :)

[Edric O]

To answer your question, if people voted to strip themselves of their right to sell/buy/trade their own private property with others at their own leisure then sure, let them. But don't penalize their decsendants who may not want it at all. So long as there is always an "out" for the people to change it, then i dont care. What I would never support is people voting to lose their right to vote. Because all those countless generations that follow the idiots that do such a thing would have no freedom to and would pay the penalty for the idiocy of their ancestors.

So, what would you do if Nema's Consiliary Dynamism (his council system), in combination with my economical system, would rise to power in a country? And what if the people of that country loved it?

[Acriku]

The only reason is was used was to keep two sides of people (one wanted majority rules, the other wanted equal chances of states). If you have a better system that satisfies both parties then by all means tell me. God knows I didn't read your own "system" of government, so repeat it if you said it there.

[zamboe]

I think you need to define "regulated"

Oh, they are regulated, just not in any manner consistent with logic or servicing humanity. And if you think the US controls the oil markets, think again. Then think yet again.

On the contrary you understand me wrong. I dont think that the US regulates or control the oil market, they have interest in it, but can't control it.

uh, you mean OPEC?

Yes. I was thinking in Spanish (OPEP = Organizacion de Paises Exportadores de Petroleo), it's OPEC in english. OPEC is the living prove that the market has no regulations at all, and afects the lives of people who lives in countries that imports oil.

lol, and where did you get this information from?

www.energycentral.com

www.spe.org

No we dont. in fact, i hope it doesn't so that oil prices will stay high forcing us to locate sources in alaska, and convert reliance on nuclear energy.

No YOU dont. Don't talk for others, what's more don't talk about other's money. Many would like to pay as less as possible no matter where the oil comes from.

Uhh, i dont know if you've been watching the news, or what they report down there in Argentina, but Bush is advocating war with Iraq. From a moral position, that may be a good thing. But make no doubt, it is not a good business decision. And you think the world economy will skyrocket if Bush goes to war? Think again.

I dont get your point. Besides I dont live in Argentina.

OPEC is a vile, evil international organization. I would not be surprised if the antichrist was in OPEC. (jk). OPEC is truly a tyrant and actively tries to squash alternative energy initiatives.

I agree with you on that. OPEC (OPEP) should be dissapear, and from that point of view the war on Iraq would make economic sense, since after a new gov takes place, there would be much more offer of oil outside the OPEC's control and therefore their power would be reduced.

[Edric O]

Acriku, are there any Americans who still want equal chances of states? I mean, states aren't really separate cultural entities any more. Your system is very old...

Consiliary Dynamism has nothing to do with balancing the 2 tendencies which you describe... But here it is again. I will quote Nema:

Let us consider the phrase "power corrupts". The idea of democracy is that power shared across the entire population will not be sufficient in any individual to corrupt any one. However, democracy fails in two ways: firstly, democracies elect representatives who individually hold power that would otherwise be spread across thousands of constituents - possibly sufficient to corrupt. Secondly, there is the problem that politics in a democracy where the people do not use their power or do not use it sensibly turns into a popularity contest, or a choice between larger parties so similar that the public are apathetic about any, and therefore about all politics. We see here the opposite to "power corrupts" - "weakness breeds disinterest" - without the choice of something different, people take what they are given for granted, and begin to ignore it.

However, note that in both cases that it is not the power or weakness itself which has this effect - it is someone's belief in the magnitude of their power that corrupts, and someone's lack of faith in their own ability to change something that makes them stop trying. Note especially that the illusion of power is relative - individual voters feel weaker if there is an omnipotent president, but stronger if there are larger groups who are unable to vote.

Therefore, when constructing a system of government, it must be considered that no-one should believe they have sufficient power to manipulate it to their own wont. Equally, no-one in the system should feel that they are so weak that the decisions they are asked to make are not needed. To do this, we must make each decision universal, but no decision can be so great that it might be manipulated by greed. This seems impossible.

At this point, I will remind you of another political ideas that is relevant. The idea of checks and balances to stop corruption by limitation of power is essential. It can be through scrutiny panels like corruption courts, or the electorate. Or, it can be through division of power - separate executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government are common to many European democracies. Of these options, both will stop any manipulation of decisions for the purpose of greed, but only the second allows (some) decisions to be universal - in that decisions made by the Judiciary usually cannot be revoked or affected by decisions by the legislative. However, in most countries with such a system, we still have conflicts between different stages of the system - local legislative groups might pass a bye-law, but a national parliament might declare that the bye-law will be damaging to the country as a whole, thus over-ruling it. Therefore, the solution again seems to be to divide up the roles of of each body further, so that any one decision can only be made by one governing body - no single body can make decisions which are superior to those of another body. There are two reasons for this - first, the idea that one council is any better at making decisions than another is absurd. Secondly, as previously stated, the illusion of power is relative; if two councils composed in the same way were to make decisions on the same problem, making one council's decision constitutionally superior to that of the other will cause the 'better' council members to feel more powerful - and they would be more prone to corruption, whereas the 'worse' councillors would be more prone to disinterest.

So decisions should only be made once - this considerably reduces red tape, but appears to leave no route for appeal. This is not true, however. If the situation (or evidence) has changed considerably since the initial decision was made, then that decision will not be made again if an appeal is mounted - the decision could well be a different one, sice it will be made concerning different circumstances, even if the topic and question are the same.

Next, it must be found how to best do this. It is obvious that no decision can be made by one person alone. But equally, it is difficult to keep an overlarge group informed well enough that they can contribute to the decision and the discussion of the decision. These are considerationsthat must be taken, but it is not my place, nor is it within my ability to assert or otherwise prescribe a set size for each body. However, it is known that there must be a great number of these bodies, each to deal with a different set of issues. Each council will have an equal amount of power, because each decision will be irrefutible by other councils. Some councils will be permenant, but some will be temporary (councils to run enquiries into reasons for problems, crises, and disasters). Some will deal with research and analysis to provide information for other councils, others will make executive decisions. Some will deal with the administration (creation of, removal of, assignment of personnel to, liasons between) other councils.

So, once we have developed such a format for a council, we need to know about its members - specifically, how they are chosen. Since, in a vast network of councils, it is impossible to elect every single one democratically (plus, see above the problems of democracy, eg the tendency to elect figures for their popularity, not their ability), they must be elected in some other fashion. Moreover, this method cannot be relative to any form of political weightings, because that would be subject to opinion, as well as corruption. The only fair method is to select people randomly from the population to contribute, in the same way as National Service works in some European countries. Note that proficiency tests in such decision making would be required - perhaps in the form of written examinations, coupled with oral work and interviews. Those passing a minimum standard in capability and willingness will be put on a database, from which possible candidates for each council will be randomly selected, based on their preferences and interest in particular topics (so that people are not chosen to work on topics that bore them. Equally, someone who feels passionately about a particular topic is unsuitable to work as an unbiased opinion in a council).

[Acriku]

Acriku, are there any Americans who still want equal chances of states? I mean, states aren't really separate cultural entities any more. Your system is very old...

First off, yes they do. Some people want equal chances for states, because then small states wouldn't have any power over huge populated states. And I don't necessarily agree with the system used by the US (not my system).

[Edric O]

First off, yes they do. Some people want equal chances for states

Oh, I didn't know that. I thought the system was complete obsolete. I guess I was wrong, sorry.

[ordos45]

My state might as well be in the Fuedalism system. West Virginia has the highest rate of out of state ownership of property, relies highly on out of state corporations, etc.

OPEC, OPEC is weak! The Saudis might as well have said "screw you guys" once it started undercutting their prices by independently selling its oil to the US...which US engineers helped set up, considering the Saudi Oil Industry was set up by the United States.

[Caid Ivik]

I think that OPEC is too, too much powerful.

[emprworm]

OPEC weak? What the.....?

Hello? Did I miss something?

Does he think the US regulates oil prices? lol

we are helpless when it comes to oil prices.

[quoudam72]

OPEC does not have the same power like they had before in the world oil market. Although OPEC still controls more than half of the world's crude oil exports, the world league of top-10 oil producers now contains just three OPEC members. With memebeship like that shoring up prices by cutting production can be undermined by non members (Russia, Norway and Mexico).

The following are OPEC members:

Saudi Arabia

Iraq

UAE

Kuwait

Iran

Qatar (the location of Ordos45) ;)

Africa

Nigeria

Libya

Algeria

Asia-Pacific

Indonesia

South America

Venezuela

[Caid Ivik]

Iraq is in OPEC? They are banned to export oil, I think.

[quoudam72]

The original UN resolution completely banned Iraq from selling its main export, oil, on the international market. But the gradual relaxation of the embargo has led to an increasing amount of oil being sold.

In 1996, Iraq accepted the UN's oil-for-food programme, which allowed it to sell limited amounts of oil to buy more food and humanitarian supplies. The limit was raised over time and Iraq has sold over $39 billion worth of oil under the programme.

[emprworm]

earthnuker, if you are reading this, I hope you can learn a thing about quandom72. See how he specifically lists the countries in OPEC? He makes a statement, then he cites the specifics behind the statement. Look also at his post right above mine. He starts a sentence with "In 1996, Iraq accepted ". He is citing a specific country with a specific date and telling us what specifically that country did. He doesn't just quote some global factoid and then blames someone without supporting his contention. Sure would be nice if you would do that with even 1 out of 10 of your posts.

[quoudam72]

Well it is the only way to debate and be heard among my Dune peers. I know we have talked about oil reserves in the past so I had to do more research to support my statements about said oil reserves.

10 Countries with the largest oil reserves

[table]

[tr][td]Rank[/td][td]Country[/td][td]Oil Reserve Barrels[/td][td]% of Total[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]1[/td][td]Saudi Arabia[/td][td]261 700 000 000[/td][td]25.01[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]2[/td][td]Iraq[/td][td]112 500 000 000[/td][td]10.75[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]3[/td][td]United Arab Emirates[/td][td]97 800 000 000[/td][td]9.35[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]4[/td][td]Kuwait[/td][td]96 500 000 000[/td][td]9.22[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]5[/td][td]Iran[/td][td]89 700 000 000[/td][td]8.57[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]6[/td][td]Venezuela[/td][td]76 900 000 000[/td][td]7.35[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]7[/td][td]Russia[/td][td]48 600 000 000[/td][td]4.64[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]8[/td][td]United States[/td][td]29 700 000 000[/td][td]2.84[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]9[/td][td]Libya[/td][td]29 500 000 000[/td][td]2.82[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]10[/td][td]Mexico[/td][td]28 300 000 000[/td][td]2.70[/td][/tr]

[/table]

World total: 1 046 400 000 000 barrels

Source: BP, Statistical Review of World Energy 2001.

[emprworm]

iraq may have a lot of oil, but as I cited earlier, it only represents 5% of the current world market.

and the numbers for the US and canada will probably increase with Oil exploration in the Yukon areas of the far north.

[Dunenewt]

If you go to DuneNovels.com there are some notes written by Frank Herbert which include his opinion on OPEC

[quoudam72]

Yes, but I posted that table not to discuss if Iraq's oil reserves are 5% of the global oil reserves or not. I posted this information as oppose to the statements made earlier about Iraq's oil reserves being 2nd largest in the world. And to show what countries are where as to oil reserves are concerned. ;D

Here are a two interesting facts to think about...

1. In the last 15 years Turkey has burnt 3,000 Kurdish villages to the ground creating three million refugees and 10,000 political prisoners. Kurds are not allowed to speak their language or show any sign of their national identity without being sent to prison or killed. But Turkey is a member of NATO and a friend of Britain and the United States so again they do nothing.

2. Britain was the first country to use chemical weapons in the middle east when *Winston Churchill ordered the gas bombing of Kurdish villages in the 1930s.

*(Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the cost of policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit the potential of modern technology. This strategy had particular relevance to operations in Iraq. On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would entail *the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death...for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes.*

Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes. Henry Wilson shared Churchill's enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause *only discomfort or illness, but not death * to dissident tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It was likely that the suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and *kill children and sickly persons, more especially as the people against whom we intend to use it have no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes.*

Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use of gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented *by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly*. In the event, gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral effect)

The above information is an excerpt from Simons, Geoff. *IRAQ: FROM SUMER TO SUDAN*. London: St. Martins Press, 1994.

[Anathema]

Keep in mind that the oil in Saudi Arabia isn't going to last forever, nor will the supply in Alaskay, and that the US knows that.

[ordos45]

The House just did it. A resolution has been passed to give Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq.

When he decides it is time, he may declare war.