'I Hate All Iranians' - US Aide

[Michael570]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Openly take what we want? How about openly take what is ours?

The Iranians deserve a small access fee for the use of their land; we have to go over their land and drill through it to get the oil. But the oil is not theirs. It is their trash, something that poisoned the goats. American and British oil companies developed those fields, it is their property.

I realize that the concepts of private property and rights are alien to barbarians such as you and the Iranians. Schade!!

[/quote]

If the roles were reversed and the countries of the Middle East were trying to “openly take” oil from America, we’d fight like hell to protect our land. Well, you probably wouldn’t. You’re all mouth and no knuckles.

I realize that the concepts of private property and rights are alien to you.

[Michael570]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“barbarians such as you and the Iranians”

Headhunter wrote:
"A hint of racism on your part there, Wreckless… "
[/quote]

Pot, meet kettle.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
How exactly did your oil get under their sands?

Suppose someone figured out how to turn your trash into oil or gold or whatever. You then claim that they are exploiting you, call them the Great Satan, and keep all your trash.

Without the person who figured out how to turn the trash into something of value, however, you’d keep throwing it away. The value of the trash only exists because the inventor of the process GAVE IT VALUE. The value is added by the inventor.

In the same way, oil is given value only by those who pump it, refine it, and build a civilisation uopn it. The oil does not belong to the people who inhabit the land above it because, to them, its simply a nuisance.

And yet the US follow a neo-mercantilist if not corporatist foreign policy, so why do you blame other nations if they do the same?

Why do Egyptians have to compete with subsidized cotton? Why does the prize of food go up in Mexico when corn is subsidized in the US when we all know that it makes no sense to get ethanol from corn, when it comes down to the energy balance?

What about the attempted steel tarrifs against European steel?

They do as you do and not as you preach, what did you expect?

This line of argument is a stretch.

How much of a stretch?

[/quote]

A pretty big one.

[Gkhan]

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The oil does not belong to the people who inhabit the land above it because, to them, its simply a nuisance.

You are fuckin’ insane!

Petroleum has been used by the ancient Chinese and Egypt for millenia. [/quote]

Wow, all this time I thought the Iranians were Persians.

[Gkhan]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The Belgians did, in 1944 and 1945. Are you saying that Belgians are somehow better or smarter than the people of Iran? A hint of racism on your part there, Wreckless…
[/quote]

Perhaps if the Belgians were drowned in a flood of anti-US propaganda they would have reacted differently.

[Schwarzfahrer]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
Oilhunter wrote:
The oil does not belong to the people who inhabit the land above it because, to them, its simply a nuisance.

You are fuckin’ insane!

Petroleum has been used by the ancient Chinese and Egypt for millenia.

Wow, all this time I thought the Iranians were Persians.[/quote]

Lixy is so right. This is jaw dropping ridiculous.

[quote]oilhunter wrote:
Openly take what we want? How about openly take what is ours?
The Iranians deserve a small access fee for the use of their land; we have to go over their land and drill through it to get the oil. But the oil is not theirs. It is their trash, something that poisoned the goats. American and British oil companies developed those fields, it is their property.
I realize that the concepts of private property and rights are alien to barbarians such as you and the Iranians. Schade!!
[/quote]
They kinda realized that oil is somewhat useful beyond lighting a miserable lamp. They have electricity, too, don’t you know? They also know that they can sell that what is rightfully theirs, because it is under their damn soil. Which is the very essence of private property you’re talking about.!

Perhaps you need a more colourful scenario to understand:

If someone considers your shit you shovel onto your compost heap valuable, you probably won’t be happy to see him, marching into your house without asking you beforehand and taking it. On top of that, he’s foreign, from a strange culture and totally repugnant. Also, you happen to read in a newspaper that the thing you thought to be just shit is actually immensely valuable to these guys.

Since he “discovered” your magic shit some years ago, his country has from now on unlimited rights to exploit your garden? Gimme a break. Either admit you have no problem with plain stealing from weaker nations or find a more creative way to justify it, please.

[kaaleppi]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

The Iranians deserve a small access fee for the use of their land; we have to go over their land and drill through it to get the oil. But the oil is not theirs. It is their trash, something that poisoned the goats. American and British oil companies developed those fields, it is their property.

[/quote]

How small?

[lixy]

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

The Iranians deserve a small access fee for the use of their land; we have to go over their land and drill through it to get the oil. But the oil is not theirs. It is their trash, something that poisoned the goats. American and British oil companies developed those fields, it is their property.

How small?[/quote]

From HH’s point of view, the least the better I guess.

[orion]

[quote]lixy wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

The Iranians deserve a small access fee for the use of their land; we have to go over their land and drill through it to get the oil. But the oil is not theirs. It is their trash, something that poisoned the goats. American and British oil companies developed those fields, it is their property.

How small?

From HH’s point of view, the least the better I guess.[/quote]

Where HH goes wrong is that most of these deals had been made by and with colonial puppet regimes.

The term Banana republic comes to mind, originating in the history of the United Fruit (Chiquita!) company that bought whole governments and then made “deals” with them.

If there had been fair negotiations between equal partners I would probably find it in me to be against such nationalizations, but if the property of thieves gets stolen I find it hard to shed a tear.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

The Iranians deserve a small access fee for the use of their land; we have to go over their land and drill through it to get the oil. But the oil is not theirs. It is their trash, something that poisoned the goats. American and British oil companies developed those fields, it is their property.

How small?

From HH’s point of view, the least the better I guess.

Where HH goes wrong is that most of these deals had been made by and with colonial puppet regimes.

The term Banana republic comes to mind, originating in the history of the United Fruit (Chiquita!) company that bought whole governments and then made “deals” with them.

If there had been fair negotiations between equal partners I would probably find it in me to be against such nationalizations, but if the property of thieves gets stolen I find it hard to shed a tear.

[/quote]

If you are going to go down that route, most capitalism is theft and certainly all real estate is.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If you are going to go down that route, most capitalism is theft and certainly all real estate is.[/quote]

I have a very hard time understanding property rights in terms of real estate because I don’t know how owning land is possible. If land is originally uninhabited and someone stakes a claim on it…does that person have a “right” to it? If someone then takes the time to cultivate the land and then produce from it goods and services are those products rightfully his? I would say so, but I still cannot understand the ownership of land? Where does that idea come from?

This idea has troubled me quite a bit and is one reason I have never been able to fully accept capitalism–especially in light of the theft of land from its original inhabitants. Many native American tribes did not have the same concept of sovereignty as did Europeans. They were, by and large, migratory, depending on the changing seasons for their survival. They did not view it as ownership but rather as a custodianship – taking care of and preserving the land that they relied on. The concept of exchanging land for money or goods wasn’t understood at all. Europeans definitely took advantage of this.

If we understand capitalism as a means in which goods and services are produced from the private ownership of property through a voluntary exchange of labor for some perceived benefit, we cannot rightfully call it stealing–so long as all exchanges are completely voluntary.

[orion]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

The Iranians deserve a small access fee for the use of their land; we have to go over their land and drill through it to get the oil. But the oil is not theirs. It is their trash, something that poisoned the goats. American and British oil companies developed those fields, it is their property.

How small?

From HH’s point of view, the least the better I guess.

Where HH goes wrong is that most of these deals had been made by and with colonial puppet regimes.

The term Banana republic comes to mind, originating in the history of the United Fruit (Chiquita!) company that bought whole governments and then made “deals” with them.

If there had been fair negotiations between equal partners I would probably find it in me to be against such nationalizations, but if the property of thieves gets stolen I find it hard to shed a tear.

If you are going to go down that route, most capitalism is theft and certainly all real estate is.[/quote]

Most real estate has changed hands because of violence several times, absolutely.

How that makes capitalism theft I do not know since land is not that an important factor for most capitalist enterprises.

At somepoint we have to accept property rights as they are in order to develop a market and a civil society, but that moment is arbitrary and I doubt that the moment a puppet regime made a contract with a company is the moment most people will accept.

The problem is that without the acceptance of property rights by the people there is no way to enforce them.

So, unfortunately, some rudimentary elements of fairness, as seen by the society you expect to enforce your contract will have to play a role in the decision.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

The Iranians deserve a small access fee for the use of their land; we have to go over their land and drill through it to get the oil. But the oil is not theirs. It is their trash, something that poisoned the goats. American and British oil companies developed those fields, it is their property.

How small?

From HH’s point of view, the least the better I guess.

Where HH goes wrong is that most of these deals had been made by and with colonial puppet regimes.

The term Banana republic comes to mind, originating in the history of the United Fruit (Chiquita!) company that bought whole governments and then made “deals” with them.

If there had been fair negotiations between equal partners I would probably find it in me to be against such nationalizations, but if the property of thieves gets stolen I find it hard to shed a tear.

If you are going to go down that route, most capitalism is theft and certainly all real estate is.

Most real estate has changed hands because of violence several times, absolutely.

How that makes capitalism theft I do not know since land is not that an important factor for most capitalist enterprises.

At somepoint we have to accept property rights as they are in order to develop a market and a civil society, but that moment is arbitrary and I doubt that the moment a puppet regime made a contract with a company is the moment most people will accept.

The problem is that without the acceptance of property rights by the people there is no way to enforce them.

So, unfortunately, some rudimentary elements of fairness, as seen by the society you expect to enforce your contract will have to play a role in the decision. [/quote]

Keep spinning. It looks hard for you to reconcile your libertarianism with your anti-Americanism.

[orion]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

The Iranians deserve a small access fee for the use of their land; we have to go over their land and drill through it to get the oil. But the oil is not theirs. It is their trash, something that poisoned the goats. American and British oil companies developed those fields, it is their property.

How small?

From HH’s point of view, the least the better I guess.

Where HH goes wrong is that most of these deals had been made by and with colonial puppet regimes.

The term Banana republic comes to mind, originating in the history of the United Fruit (Chiquita!) company that bought whole governments and then made “deals” with them.

If there had been fair negotiations between equal partners I would probably find it in me to be against such nationalizations, but if the property of thieves gets stolen I find it hard to shed a tear.

If you are going to go down that route, most capitalism is theft and certainly all real estate is.

Most real estate has changed hands because of violence several times, absolutely.

How that makes capitalism theft I do not know since land is not that an important factor for most capitalist enterprises.

At somepoint we have to accept property rights as they are in order to develop a market and a civil society, but that moment is arbitrary and I doubt that the moment a puppet regime made a contract with a company is the moment most people will accept.

The problem is that without the acceptance of property rights by the people there is no way to enforce them.

So, unfortunately, some rudimentary elements of fairness, as seen by the society you expect to enforce your contract will have to play a role in the decision.

Keep spinning. It looks hard for you to reconcile your libertarianism with your anti-Americanism.[/quote]

Keep ignoring my points. It seems easy for you to start a straw man maneuver when you run out of arguments.

[orion]

And here comes the real frightening part Zap:

I could hate America from the bottom of my heart and still be right.

There are even people out that there doing it who have valid reasons for their hate.

So even if you manage to convince yourself that I indeed hate America, for what reason I don`t know, you have gained nothing, because my points stand and fall on their own.

It iseth downright unsettling when you think about it.

[Schwarzfahrer]

[quote]orion wrote:
And here comes the real frightening part Zap:

I could hate America from the bottom of my heart and still be right.

There are even people out that there doing it who have valid reasons for their hate.

So even if you manage to convince yourself that I indeed hate America, for what reason I don`t know, you have gained nothing, because my points stand and fall on their own.

It iseth downright unsettling when you think about it.

[/quote]

Yeah, but you hate freedom, so you’re wrong.

edit: this charade reminds ms of the video of this angry arabian woman on al-jazeera, that we all know. She argues, and argues and this imam only wants to know if she’s a heretic.

[Neuromancer]

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
orion wrote:
And here comes the real frightening part Zap:

I could hate America from the bottom of my heart and still be right.

There are even people out that there doing it who have valid reasons for their hate.

So even if you manage to convince yourself that I indeed hate America, for what reason I don`t know, you have gained nothing, because my points stand and fall on their own.

It iseth downright unsettling when you think about it.

Yeah, but you hate freedom, so you’re wrong.[/quote]

And don’t forget jealous to boot!

[orion]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

The Iranians deserve a small access fee for the use of their land; we have to go over their land and drill through it to get the oil. But the oil is not theirs. It is their trash, something that poisoned the goats. American and British oil companies developed those fields, it is their property.

How small?

From HH’s point of view, the least the better I guess.

Where HH goes wrong is that most of these deals had been made by and with colonial puppet regimes.

The term Banana republic comes to mind, originating in the history of the United Fruit (Chiquita!) company that bought whole governments and then made “deals” with them.

If there had been fair negotiations between equal partners I would probably find it in me to be against such nationalizations, but if the property of thieves gets stolen I find it hard to shed a tear.

If you are going to go down that route, most capitalism is theft and certainly all real estate is.

Most real estate has changed hands because of violence several times, absolutely.

How that makes capitalism theft I do not know since land is not that an important factor for most capitalist enterprises.

At somepoint we have to accept property rights as they are in order to develop a market and a civil society, but that moment is arbitrary and I doubt that the moment a puppet regime made a contract with a company is the moment most people will accept.

The problem is that without the acceptance of property rights by the people there is no way to enforce them.

So, unfortunately, some rudimentary elements of fairness, as seen by the society you expect to enforce your contract will have to play a role in the decision.

Keep spinning. It looks hard for you to reconcile your libertarianism with your anti-Americanism.[/quote]

And again for shits and giggles, property rights are not absolute in the US either.

Part of your society thinks it is perfectly ok to reditribute wealth, so they are all for stealing, for the “right” reasons.

Eminent domain?

Anyone?

Mc Fly?

That you think that this is different than other nations interpreting “property” according to their customs and mores, shows a certain cultural bias don´t you think?

I.e. if Americans do it, why bother, if others do it, oust their president, install a dictator.

[dk44]

Why is he/she wearing Micheal Jacksons jacket, shouldnt it be in the Rock and Roll HOF, or accidently left in a daycare?

[Moriarty]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
That is going too far. War IS coming but it should be a war of liberation.[/quote]

Hold on…I thought that Iran was part of “the nest” that needed to be “purged”…