You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Immunity for Telecoms
- Thread starter tomahawk
- Start date
Quote from Kingofposters:
Purchasing the rights to oil is not stealing it. Nationalizing it is stealing it. There will never be any unity that Obama is deviously promising when one side considers everything a theft that was purchased and everything legal when it is stolen. (sort of like the constant charge of Bush stealing the 00 election.) Oh, and I guess one could add the constant refrain that the rich have gotten rich on the backs of (or stolen) from the poor.
Installing the murderous Shah of Iran is was NOT purchasing the rights.
It's was installing a criminal government to help steal it.
Maybe it can be called buying the government of a country, but buying a country at the expense of it's citizens is morally wrong.
Why can a country not nationalize its natural resources if it so chooses?
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
So basically you're saying the iranians are better off living under a repressive dictatorship of fanatical religious extremeists straight out of the middle ages? Funny but all the iranians I know would disagree. They despise Jimmy Carter for turning their country over to this horror.
My recollection of that time frame tells me that of the many Iranians who did come over here were wealthy, prominent, and part of the capitalist world of the Shah. Their caste system was worse than most of that time.
It is so hard to really tell what the actual majority of most Middle East countries feel since we are so biased in most of our news coverage. And, yes, I mean bias from both sides, those for and against the war.
When the Missionaries explored and converted Latin America to Catholicism it was God's work, not a religious invasion. Maybe, just maybe, the Latino's and the others affected didn't really want to start worshipping someone/something else. Who knows for sure.
One man's invasionary force, is another man's liberatint army I guess.
c
Quote from seker2k:
Installing the murderous Shah of Iran is was NOT purchasing the rights.
It's was installing a criminal government to help steal it.
Maybe it can be called buying the government of a country, but buying a country at the expense of it's citizens is morally wrong.
Why can a country not nationalize its natural resources if it so chooses?
How many did the murderous Shah murder and how many have the current cabal murdered?
I guess your second paragraph reveals that you feel the citizens are now better off. I don't share that sentiment.
The reason a country cannot nationalize it's natural resources is that someone has risked money and that money is now confiscated. Something tells me that if you owned shares in a foreign company and it was nationalized, you wouldn't think it was fair. Am I right?
Quote from cgroupman:
My recollection of that time frame tells me that of the many Iranians who did come over here were wealthy, prominent, and part of the capitalist world of the Shah. Their caste system was worse than most of that time.
It is so hard to really tell what the actual majority of most Middle East countries feel since we are so biased in most of our news coverage. And, yes, I mean bias from both sides, those for and against the war.
When the Missionaries explored and converted Latin America to Catholicism it was God's work, not a religious invasion. Maybe, just maybe, the Latino's and the others affected didn't really want to start worshipping someone/something else. Who knows for sure.
One man's invasionary force, is another man's liberatint army I guess.
c
Did the Catholics convert the latinos against their will? You seem to be implying as much. I don't buy it. I don't believe that there is any evidence that the latinos were forced to worship.
They voted in Iraq. The majority voted for a new democratic style gov't. The minority continue to fight. That equals liberation, not invasion.
Quote from Kingofposters:
How many did the murderous Shah murder and how many have the current cabal murdered?
I guess your second paragraph reveals that you feel the citizens are now better off. I don't share that sentiment.
The reason a country cannot nationalize it's natural resources is that someone has risked money and that money is now confiscated. Something tells me that if you owned shares in a foreign company and it was nationalized, you wouldn't think it was fair. Am I right?
Just because a corrupt government of the priviledged few, agrees to sell resources on the cheap to an imperialist nation (Britain), does not mean the citizens of the country agreed, nor are bound by their rulers agreements.
If you are a US citizen, are you personally responsible for the debt and spending of the US government?
I say no, a citizen is not responsible for his governments actions, if he has no choice in those actions.
Quote from Kingofposters:
Did the Catholics convert the latinos against their will? You seem to be implying as much. I don't buy it. I don't believe that there is any evidence that the latinos were forced to worship.
They voted in Iraq. The majority voted for a new democratic style gov't. The minority continue to fight. That equals liberation, not invasion.
Yea, my ass.
Iraq is a US client state that is not rolling over so easy.
You should go over and help in the democratization process of the middle east, stand by your beliefs.
And the spread of religion has always been for making it easier for the mother country, to control the populations of the client states/colonies.