Pickens says U.S. firms 'entitled' to Iraqi oil
22 Oct 2009
Oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens told Congress on Wednesday that U.S. energy companies are "entitled" to some of Iraq's crude because of the large number of American troops that lost their lives fighting in the country and the U.S. taxpayer money spent in Iraq. Boone, speaking to the newly formed Congressional Natural Gas Caucus, complained that the Iraqi government has awarded contracts to foreign companies, particularly Chinese firms, to develop Iraq's vast reserves while American companies have mostly been shut out. "They're opening them (oil fields) up to other companies all over the world ... We're entitled to it," Pickens said of Iraq's oil.
Full Version: America is Entitled
We borrowed money from China to fight a war on behalf of oil FOR China as one of the major benefactors and now they want us to pay back what we borrowed to go to war and go get the oil themselves? I DON'T THINK SO!
In this case, Pickens is right!
In this case, Pickens is right!
QUOTE(heart @ Oct 22 2009, 06:02 PM) 
We borrowed money from China to fight a war on behalf of oil FOR China as one of the major benefactors and now they want us to pay back what we borrowed to go to war and go get the oil themselves? I DON'T THINK SO!
In this case, Pickens is right!
In this case, Pickens is right!
So therefore we should now go to war with China...
QUOTE(heart @ Oct 22 2009, 09:02 PM)
We borrowed money from China to fight a war on behalf of oil FOR China as one of the major benefactors and now they want us to pay back what we borrowed to go to war and go get the oil themselves? I DON'T THINK SO!
In this case, Pickens is right!
In this case, Pickens is right!
Heart, I don't want to appear to be picking on you, but I'd like to parse this sentence and ask for some "back-up" ...
That "We borrowed money from China" is clear enough. That we borrowed it "to fight a war" seems curious.
Did we put on the loan application that we were going to use the money to go to war?
Or did we decide to do that unilaterally?
How does China feel about its funds being used to create a foothold underneath its southwest border?
Did the banker (China) stipulate that they ought to get some return in oil or oil-related contracts?
Did China indicate that we should do this so as to provide security for Israel?
If we default on the loans, can we count on Israel bailing us in (we've been bailing them out for a while, is there some return we can expect?)
If there should come a time, for various reasons, that we should engage in some nuclear attack somewhere on somebody, who's side will China be on?
How, in the grand game of "Diplomacy" and "War", do you see this all working out?
How does China feel about what we're all doing in South America? Africa?
QUOTE(Magmak1 @ Oct 22 2009, 09:46 PM)
QUOTE(heart @ Oct 22 2009, 09:02 PM)
We borrowed money from China to fight a war on behalf of oil FOR China as one of the major benefactors and now they want us to pay back what we borrowed to go to war and go get the oil themselves? I DON'T THINK SO!
In this case, Pickens is right!
In this case, Pickens is right!
Heart, I don't want to appear to be picking on you, but I'd like to parse this sentence and ask for some "back-up" ...
That "We borrowed money from China" is clear enough. That we borrowed it "to fight a war" seems curious.
Did we put on the loan application that we were going to use the money to go to war?
Or did we decide to do that unilaterally?
Yes, I think they knew what we were using the money for, but no, I don't remember where I read that. I'll look it up and see what I can find at a future time if you want the "whole story" on that financing.
How does China feel about its funds being used to create a foothold underneath its southwest border?
China could care less about its southwest border, or its northwest border, or the people that live there. No one lives in western China, if that's what you mean, except the Uyghurs and that piece of China that sticks into Afghanistan is simply a place the Chinese occasionally go do wargames on the people there just to keep their military trained. Tibet is the Southwest border, and we can all recount the story of how they treat the Tibetans. They have that whole area as a buffer zone and only exploit it for whatever they can get out of it. Other than that, can you please point me to where on the Chinese map you mean?
Did the banker (China) stipulate that they ought to get some return in oil or oil-related contracts?
Their return on investment was supposed to be a robust American economy in order to sell their products to us, interest on a strong dollar (Saddam was threatening to go to Euros), and it took our eyes off of Africa and Darfur so they could protect Chinese interests in those locations, irrespective of the genocide or the five wars all members of the UN Security council are constantly arming both sides to fight?
Did China indicate that we should do this so as to provide security for Israel?
Boy are you barking up the wrong tree there. The boogey-man is not Israel on this deal. If you like I'll send you my graduate semester paper and presentation on the history of Shell Oil in Kurdistan, the condition of Iraq's crumbling oil infrastructure, and the possibility that with infrastructure upgrades it could double or triple it's output.
If we default on the loans, can we count on Israel bailing us in (we've been bailing them out for a while, is there some return we can expect?)
I dunno, maybe, because they have invented so many things, so much technology, so much nano-tech and things that currently keep us all living long lives....I would say they give us a pretty good return on our investment. Since we give Egypt almost the same exact amount each year, just to keep Mubarak in power, perhaps Egypt could bail us out.
But, since Jews understood Darwin long before Darwin, and did not send their smartest boys off to be celibate instead of marrying them to the smartest most beautiful women in THE OTHER VILLAGE, and did not let the lights go out during the dark ages, but instead kept western civilization's lights burning in Arab lands, and did not have the ability to sit around and plow fields they weren't allowed to own, but instead had to learn things they could take with them when they were thrown out of whatever strange land they were inhabiting, thus increased the knowledge of all, and did not dumb down their knowledge during the reformation by believing that only the Good Book was worth reading, and the west decided to create an area in the lands THEY claimed THEY owned.... where Jews could go (so they could get rid of them actually), and since they won 2 or 3 wars without our arms, just old French, English and Russian tanks and rifles, and since they did grow to be the 13 largest economy on a spot of hostile land in the middle of the desert, yet they have more trees and green now than they did then (something no other country could boast) and since they were thrown out of about 20 other Arab countries and deposited in Israel penniless and STILL survived and thrived. I think we can just figure that Jews will be Jews, and that's a good thing.
Now, if we want, we can still keep selling arms to both sides of every single conflict including Israel's enemies, and ignore that most of arms sales go through the the U.A.E and Saudi to be dispersed to who knows where, well, we can only hope they aren't used on us, cause they are used on Israel. Israel knows this too....but what are they going to do about it except invent more things so they are useful to our interests?
If there should come a time, for various reasons, that we should engage in some nuclear attack somewhere on somebody, who's side will China be on?
China's side. Nations have interests, not friends. Those that follow the "friendship" rules, perish or lay dormant for others to plunder if they can't find a way to make themselves useful.
How, in the grand game of "Diplomacy" and "War", do you see this all working out?
I have posted a very good article on this, but it's long. It's about Geopolitics. A different way of looking at the world than we are used to seeing it. Would you like to read it?
In theory, Iraq's oil belongs to Iraqis right? I wish that were true. But, they do not currently have the technical expertise to do the kind of large scale projects needed. There will be corruption and there will be cronyism and their will be coercion. It WILL be done by some country, and therefore, I believe we ought to be a bit miffed if the Chinese are trying to do that. It would be good if Turkey were allowed in because it gives them a stake in a stable Kurdistan, Jordan can be of some use too. But the Chinese don't really care about stablization. They are no better, and no worse, than Pinochet's goon squad that Blackwater hired. They will simply blow anything that moves to smithereens, not having a public back at home to worry about pleasing.
How does China feel about what we're all doing in South America? Africa?
Do you mean you don't know what China is doing in Africa and South America? I think the question should be reversed.
In other words, everyone should do what's in their own best interests and everything and everyone else be damned, and we shall thank someone or something that the superlatively-exceptional important chosen Jewish people populated this earth and recognize that no one else can contribute, learn, evolve, produce or otherwise make a scientific, humanitarian or artistic contribution to the world.
War is all (hey, it props up our economy, and we have all those useless people to pick on, kill, assassinate, flechette, torture, phosphorize or deplete with our uranium rounds) so we can get out oil, war dividends, SUV's, large screen TV's and those all important nano-something-or-others that are sure to extend our lives and their quality.
Quality of life derives from the death of others.
The new meme...
Get yours here now.
Enlist now before we run out of enemies.
It's a self-devouring cycle.
Yum yum.
War is all (hey, it props up our economy, and we have all those useless people to pick on, kill, assassinate, flechette, torture, phosphorize or deplete with our uranium rounds) so we can get out oil, war dividends, SUV's, large screen TV's and those all important nano-something-or-others that are sure to extend our lives and their quality.
Quality of life derives from the death of others.
The new meme...
Get yours here now.
Enlist now before we run out of enemies.
It's a self-devouring cycle.
Yum yum.
Of course not! I was stating what appears to be the way countries behave, not the way they SHOULD behave. Half of that was tongue in cheek, yet still true. I don't like it and I don't want it. I'm just pointing out the behavior and considering the vector of the behavior attempting to answer your questions. No, China is the last person that should be (and no one should be) in charge of Middle Eastern, African or South American anything because THEY do not really treat anyone other than a certain kind of coastal Chinese as REAL PEOPLE. And the Chinese have mostly never, to this day, seen Tiannemen Square footage.
When I give you what appears to be the behavior of a group, it does not mean I advocate that behavior....sometimes it does mean that I can see that's what is going to happen anyway, and since it is going to happen, we could tweak it a little so that it's a bit kinder to those involved...like the Iraqis in this case.
.
What did I write that was untrue, as opposed to "not right"?
I'll tell you where I was being cheeky, but it seemed obvious to me.
As for the Jews ....I get tired of listening to the conspiracy theories and after awhile, I simply tell it like it really is regarding the Jews. It's no secret that Jews are over represented in whatever professions have allowed them to succeed. Some conclude that because this is true, it must be some mass conspiracy, but it's as simple as Darwin and the circumstances I listed.
Jewish people didn't popualte the earth, hell, Jews don't even proselytize, but nor do they run the earth. Everything cannot reduce to the Jews, the Jews, the Jews or to Israel as the "Big Jew as country". You and everyone else inserts "Zionists' and "Israel" "ZOG" and all sort of things into ALL discussions of foreign policy into all conversations where I am a contributer, as if to either get my goat, or bait me, turn me against Judaism or against Israel, or just because you guys really believe there is some damn conspiracy going on.... just like the Right Wing does to Islam and Muslims and Mecca etc....When in fact, there's only maybe 3 out of 10000 that might consider blowing up a building. Hey, there are some buildings....like the equifux building.....well....sometimes you kinda wish they would choose their buildings more carefully don't you? Empty though, like in a movie I like.
When I give you what appears to be the behavior of a group, it does not mean I advocate that behavior....sometimes it does mean that I can see that's what is going to happen anyway, and since it is going to happen, we could tweak it a little so that it's a bit kinder to those involved...like the Iraqis in this case.
.
What did I write that was untrue, as opposed to "not right"?
I'll tell you where I was being cheeky, but it seemed obvious to me.
As for the Jews ....I get tired of listening to the conspiracy theories and after awhile, I simply tell it like it really is regarding the Jews. It's no secret that Jews are over represented in whatever professions have allowed them to succeed. Some conclude that because this is true, it must be some mass conspiracy, but it's as simple as Darwin and the circumstances I listed.
Jewish people didn't popualte the earth, hell, Jews don't even proselytize, but nor do they run the earth. Everything cannot reduce to the Jews, the Jews, the Jews or to Israel as the "Big Jew as country". You and everyone else inserts "Zionists' and "Israel" "ZOG" and all sort of things into ALL discussions of foreign policy into all conversations where I am a contributer, as if to either get my goat, or bait me, turn me against Judaism or against Israel, or just because you guys really believe there is some damn conspiracy going on.... just like the Right Wing does to Islam and Muslims and Mecca etc....When in fact, there's only maybe 3 out of 10000 that might consider blowing up a building. Hey, there are some buildings....like the equifux building.....well....sometimes you kinda wish they would choose their buildings more carefully don't you? Empty though, like in a movie I like.
QUOTE(heart @ Oct 23 2009, 12:11 AM)
Of course not! I was stating what appears to be the way countries behave, not the way they SHOULD behave. Half of that was tongue in cheek, yet still true. I don't like it and I don't want it. I'm just pointing out the behavior and considering the vector of the behavior attempting to answer your questions. No, China is the last person that should be (and no one should be) in charge of Middle Eastern, African or South American anything because THEY do not really treat anyone other than a certain kind of coastal Chinese as REAL PEOPLE. And the Chinese have mostly never, to this day, seen Tiannemen Square footage.
When I give you what appears to be the behavior of a group, it does not mean I advocate that behavior....sometimes it does mean that I can see that's what is going to happen anyway, and since it is going to happen, we could tweak it a little so that it's a bit kinder to those involved...like the Iraqis in this case.
.
What did I write that was untrue, as opposed to "not right"?
I'll tell you where I was being cheeky, but it seemed obvious to me.
As for the Jews ....I get tired of listening to the conspiracy theories and after awhile, I simply tell it like it really is regarding the Jews. It's no secret that Jews are over represented in whatever professions have allowed them to succeed. Some conclude that because this is true, it must be some mass conspiracy, but it's as simple as Darwin and the circumstances I listed.
Jewish people didn't popualte the earth, hell, Jews don't even proselytize, but nor do they run the earth. Everything cannot reduce to the Jews, the Jews, the Jews or to Israel as the "Big Jew as country". You and everyone else inserts "Zionists' and "Israel" "ZOG" and all sort of things into ALL discussions of foreign policy into all conversations where I am a contributer, as if to either get my goat, or bait me, turn me against Judaism or against Israel, or just because you guys really believe there is some damn conspiracy going on.... just like the Right Wing does to Islam and Muslims and Mecca etc....When in fact, there's only maybe 3 out of 10000 that might consider blowing up a building. Hey, there are some buildings....like the equifux building.....well....sometimes you kinda wish they would choose their buildings more carefully don't you? Empty though, like in a movie I like.
When I give you what appears to be the behavior of a group, it does not mean I advocate that behavior....sometimes it does mean that I can see that's what is going to happen anyway, and since it is going to happen, we could tweak it a little so that it's a bit kinder to those involved...like the Iraqis in this case.
.
What did I write that was untrue, as opposed to "not right"?
I'll tell you where I was being cheeky, but it seemed obvious to me.
As for the Jews ....I get tired of listening to the conspiracy theories and after awhile, I simply tell it like it really is regarding the Jews. It's no secret that Jews are over represented in whatever professions have allowed them to succeed. Some conclude that because this is true, it must be some mass conspiracy, but it's as simple as Darwin and the circumstances I listed.
Jewish people didn't popualte the earth, hell, Jews don't even proselytize, but nor do they run the earth. Everything cannot reduce to the Jews, the Jews, the Jews or to Israel as the "Big Jew as country". You and everyone else inserts "Zionists' and "Israel" "ZOG" and all sort of things into ALL discussions of foreign policy into all conversations where I am a contributer, as if to either get my goat, or bait me, turn me against Judaism or against Israel, or just because you guys really believe there is some damn conspiracy going on.... just like the Right Wing does to Islam and Muslims and Mecca etc....When in fact, there's only maybe 3 out of 10000 that might consider blowing up a building. Hey, there are some buildings....like the equifux building.....well....sometimes you kinda wish they would choose their buildings more carefully don't you? Empty though, like in a movie I like.
Heart, the Neoliberal, Rational School of Geopolitics I hear you describing sounds like the gospel according to Henry Kissinger and Madiline Albright which has brought us this close to the brink...
Fortunately they are old and tired and about to be replaced with something...hopefully a better balance between the ideal and the real...I just joined the Jewish Conspiracy Network you suggested...
QUOTE
Heart, the Neoliberal, Rational School of Geopolitics I hear you describing sounds like the gospel according to Henry Kissinger and Madiline Albright which has brought us this close to the brink...
I don't mean to be nitpicky, but both of them come from the "realist" view of foreign polcy, nothing neo about them and that's the school we have followed since after we rebuilt Japan and Europe, so it didn't start with Kissinger either, although he sure has been influencial for a long time now. I always wonder if his ears and nose are going to go on living long after his face does...aren't I mean?
QUOTE
Fortunately they are old and tired and about to be replaced with something...hopefully a better balance between the ideal and the real...
I hope so! I really do! I wish I was smart enough to come up with a new way, but I'm not, and I get too tired at the end of the day to be much more than an armchair revolutionary.
QUOTE
I just joined the Jewish Conspiracy Network you suggested
... 
Hey, how did you answer the questions without my help? Where you live, you shouldn't know the answers to those questions at all. Did you cheat professor?
Well now you can spy on us and figure out what all us JOOS are up to?
Next thing you know, you'll subscribe to the Forward and there won't be anything left to hide...since it's online everybody can see all the secrets now.
I just deleted a rebuke to Heart after reading that half of what she said was "tongue in cheek".
I really like what she writes, because she likes to tell it like it is, not how she, or her ideology, would like to imagine it to be. Not that I think she is always right, but I do think that her solid connection to reality makes her right much more often than most.
I really like what she writes, because she likes to tell it like it is, not how she, or her ideology, would like to imagine it to be. Not that I think she is always right, but I do think that her solid connection to reality makes her right much more often than most.
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Oct 25 2009, 08:51 AM)
I just deleted a rebuke to Heart after reading that half of what she said was "tongue in cheek".
I really like what she writes, because she likes to tell it like it is, not how she, or her ideology, would like to imagine it to be. Not that I think she is always right, but I do think that her solid connection to reality makes her right much more often than most.
I really like what she writes, because she likes to tell it like it is, not how she, or her ideology, would like to imagine it to be. Not that I think she is always right, but I do think that her solid connection to reality makes her right much more often than most.
Heart is alright with me...
Well geez guys, thanks for giving me a break. I wasn't in a particularly charming mood....however, I'm still a bit perplexed as to what I said that was "untrue". What was offensive? Yeah, it was said in a certain tongue in cheek way, but even if it wasn't....and even if it isn't the way any one of us would like it to be....isn't that sort of the way things seem to work? Historically and now? If we can change it fine, but in the "history of foreign relation" theories I haven't come across anything that we can vector into very fast that is any better. That would take an invasion from outer space.
QUOTE(rla @ Oct 25 2009, 09:04 AM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Oct 25 2009, 08:51 AM)
I just deleted a rebuke to Heart after reading that half of what she said was "tongue in cheek".
I really like what she writes, because she likes to tell it like it is, not how she, or her ideology, would like to imagine it to be. Not that I think she is always right, but I do think that her solid connection to reality makes her right much more often than most.
I really like what she writes, because she likes to tell it like it is, not how she, or her ideology, would like to imagine it to be. Not that I think she is always right, but I do think that her solid connection to reality makes her right much more often than most.
Heart is alright with me...
Heart is a delightfull person...its her notions about Foreign Policy that sucks...
QUOTE(rla @ Oct 26 2009, 12:45 AM)
QUOTE(rla @ Oct 25 2009, 09:04 AM)
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Oct 25 2009, 08:51 AM)
I just deleted a rebuke to Heart after reading that half of what she said was "tongue in cheek".
I really like what she writes, because she likes to tell it like it is, not how she, or her ideology, would like to imagine it to be. Not that I think she is always right, but I do think that her solid connection to reality makes her right much more often than most.
I really like what she writes, because she likes to tell it like it is, not how she, or her ideology, would like to imagine it to be. Not that I think she is always right, but I do think that her solid connection to reality makes her right much more often than most.
Heart is alright with me...
Heart is a delightfull person...its her notions about Foreign Policy that sucks...
I've refrained from replying to earlier posts in this thread. I missed (I guess) the one that got deleted. No matter. I am letting my amgdala cool down and I am doing some further reading and reflection before I respond. I will respond, in due time. I want to be very careful and weigh my words and opinions carefully, not be reactive, and try to make sure I do a lot of homework first. I've been working (very slowly, still gathering resources) on writing a book about the topics touched upon in this and related threads.
Something was said here that strikes me as being at the pivot of the issues confronting the world and the nation. It is a volatile topic in a volatile world. Some people are hauling in the metaphorical kindling, creating Molotov cocktails made of words, or engaging in mindsets that do not foster cool-headedness nor understanding nor a diminution of tension. I will respond, in due time.
Don't wait up. And try not to bring down the global house first.
Thank you for that Mag. I always have admired your ability to engage in debate that is on target and meets point for point rather than simple ad hominem attacks or changing the subject, or even assuming that someone is a troll, plant, or somehow demented just because they disagree with you. I must admit that I am not always that cool headed, so it is an admirable quality. I can be rather "cheeky" and used to be much more "militant" but I sort of vowed that I would learn to walk a little bit more gently on the earth, even if I don't always succeed. It's hard to cha nge a lifelong soldier with an arrogant American attitude to a more peaceful and humble person, but at mid-life, I think I'm probably starting late too.
Yeah, rla, I guess my foreign policy can be confusing.....even to me.... but it's not because I don't care for people...it's usually because I do care for something that you may miss in my words. I think my outrage at the way that people are treated by dictatorships (particularly the women) makes me want to rush to "chop off their heads" towards those regimes who allow such abuses, but my approach just doesn't work because there is no way to topple the bad people without harming those I seek to protect.
Yeah, rla, I guess my foreign policy can be confusing.....even to me.... but it's not because I don't care for people...it's usually because I do care for something that you may miss in my words. I think my outrage at the way that people are treated by dictatorships (particularly the women) makes me want to rush to "chop off their heads" towards those regimes who allow such abuses, but my approach just doesn't work because there is no way to topple the bad people without harming those I seek to protect.
QUOTE(heart @ Oct 25 2009, 10:40 PM)
Thank you for that Mag. I always have admired your ability to engage in debate that is on target and meets point for point rather than simple ad hominem attacks or changing the subject, or even assuming that someone is a troll, plant, or somehow demented just because they disagree with you. I must admit that I am not always that cool headed, so it is an admirable quality. I can be rather "cheeky" and used to be much more "militant" but I sort of vowed that I would learn to walk a little bit more gently on the earth, even if I don't always succeed. It's hard to cha nge a lifelong soldier with an arrogant American attitude to a more peaceful and humble person, but at mid-life, I think I'm probably starting late too.
Yeah, rla, I guess my foreign policy can be confusing.....even to me.... but it's not because I don't care for people...it's usually because I do care for something that you may miss in my words. I think my outrage at the way that people are treated by dictatorships (particularly the women) makes me want to rush to "chop off their heads" towards those regimes who allow such abuses, but my approach just doesn't work because there is no way to topple the bad people without harming those I seek to protect.
Yeah, rla, I guess my foreign policy can be confusing.....even to me.... but it's not because I don't care for people...it's usually because I do care for something that you may miss in my words. I think my outrage at the way that people are treated by dictatorships (particularly the women) makes me want to rush to "chop off their heads" towards those regimes who allow such abuses, but my approach just doesn't work because there is no way to topple the bad people without harming those I seek to protect.
I agree with the great Jewish thinker, Arthur Koestler, who said that religious Jews should migrate to Israel and
other Jews should integrate themselves into the culture where they live...except that I don't believe in, "Shoulds."
QUOTE(rla @ Nov 2 2009, 10:22 AM)
QUOTE(heart @ Oct 25 2009, 10:40 PM)
Thank you for that Mag. I always have admired your ability to engage in debate that is on target and meets point for point rather than simple ad hominem attacks or changing the subject, or even assuming that someone is a troll, plant, or somehow demented just because they disagree with you. I must admit that I am not always that cool headed, so it is an admirable quality. I can be rather "cheeky" and used to be much more "militant" but I sort of vowed that I would learn to walk a little bit more gently on the earth, even if I don't always succeed. It's hard to cha nge a lifelong soldier with an arrogant American attitude to a more peaceful and humble person, but at mid-life, I think I'm probably starting late too.
Yeah, rla, I guess my foreign policy can be confusing.....even to me.... but it's not because I don't care for people...it's usually because I do care for something that you may miss in my words. I think my outrage at the way that people are treated by dictatorships (particularly the women) makes me want to rush to "chop off their heads" towards those regimes who allow such abuses, but my approach just doesn't work because there is no way to topple the bad people without harming those I seek to protect.
Yeah, rla, I guess my foreign policy can be confusing.....even to me.... but it's not because I don't care for people...it's usually because I do care for something that you may miss in my words. I think my outrage at the way that people are treated by dictatorships (particularly the women) makes me want to rush to "chop off their heads" towards those regimes who allow such abuses, but my approach just doesn't work because there is no way to topple the bad people without harming those I seek to protect.
I agree with the great Jewish thinker, Arthur Koestler, who said that religious Jews should migrate to Israel and
other Jews should integrate themselves into the culture where they live...except that I don't believe in, "Shoulds."
I've had a few rudimentary thoughts about developing a theory of Foreign Relations called A Geopolitical Theory
of Foreign Relations...
That was tongue in cheek right? You know that there is a whole school of foreign relations called "Geopolitics"?
And, why should religious Jews move to Israel? Everything was much, much, much better when religious Jews didn't have so much control. I think the ultra religious Jews should move to Alaska....well me and Michael Chabon anyway.
Besides, what are you gonna do with another 4 million people that live there that belong to a whole host of other religions that came there because Israel granted them sanctuary? It's a very tiny, very confounding and confusing place. The one truism about Israel is that it looks black and white from a distance but the closer you get the more gray EVERYTHING BECOMES! Nothing is half of what it seems on any of the multifacets of the country or the region.
I often wonder though, if there had to be, not in any free world where everything is equal, but in a system operating where one country was able to impress its values and system of government on other nations, what nation (s) would you pick?
Wouldn't it be nice if we could match up our value systems to the country of our choosing and then go live there? Businesses do it all the time. If you take power, money and nationalism or patriotism out of the equation, you don't have any mental impediments to choosing a system. If the law allows you can go there.
See, I would weigh social system with weather, culture, and happiness factors and come up with something approaching Mediterranean climate, and Swedish system of government, and spicy people like in Spain. I guess the closest I could get would be France huh?
And, why should religious Jews move to Israel? Everything was much, much, much better when religious Jews didn't have so much control. I think the ultra religious Jews should move to Alaska....well me and Michael Chabon anyway.
Besides, what are you gonna do with another 4 million people that live there that belong to a whole host of other religions that came there because Israel granted them sanctuary? It's a very tiny, very confounding and confusing place. The one truism about Israel is that it looks black and white from a distance but the closer you get the more gray EVERYTHING BECOMES! Nothing is half of what it seems on any of the multifacets of the country or the region.
I often wonder though, if there had to be, not in any free world where everything is equal, but in a system operating where one country was able to impress its values and system of government on other nations, what nation (s) would you pick?
Wouldn't it be nice if we could match up our value systems to the country of our choosing and then go live there? Businesses do it all the time. If you take power, money and nationalism or patriotism out of the equation, you don't have any mental impediments to choosing a system. If the law allows you can go there.
See, I would weigh social system with weather, culture, and happiness factors and come up with something approaching Mediterranean climate, and Swedish system of government, and spicy people like in Spain. I guess the closest I could get would be France huh?
QUOTE(heart @ Nov 2 2009, 10:43 PM)
That was tongue in cheek right? You know that there is a whole school of foreign relations called "Geopolitics"?
And, why should religious Jews move to Israel? Everything was much, much, much better when religious Jews didn't have so much control. I think the ultra religious Jews should move to Alaska....well me and Michael Chabon anyway.
Besides, what are you gonna do with another 4 million people that live there that belong to a whole host of other religions that came there because Israel granted them sanctuary? It's a very tiny, very confounding and confusing place. The one truism about Israel is that it looks black and white from a distance but the closer you get the more gray EVERYTHING BECOMES! Nothing is half of what it seems on any of the multifacets of the country or the region.
I often wonder though, if there had to be, not in any free world where everything is equal, but in a system operating where one country was able to impress its values and system of government on other nations, what nation (s) would you pick?
Wouldn't it be nice if we could match up our value systems to the country of our choosing and then go live there? Businesses do it all the time. If you take power, money and nationalism or patriotism out of the equation, you don't have any mental impediments to choosing a system. If the law allows you can go there.
See, I would weigh social system with weather, culture, and happiness factors and come up with something approaching Mediterranean climate, and Swedish system of government, and spicy people like in Spain. I guess the closest I could get would be France huh?
And, why should religious Jews move to Israel? Everything was much, much, much better when religious Jews didn't have so much control. I think the ultra religious Jews should move to Alaska....well me and Michael Chabon anyway.
Besides, what are you gonna do with another 4 million people that live there that belong to a whole host of other religions that came there because Israel granted them sanctuary? It's a very tiny, very confounding and confusing place. The one truism about Israel is that it looks black and white from a distance but the closer you get the more gray EVERYTHING BECOMES! Nothing is half of what it seems on any of the multifacets of the country or the region.
I often wonder though, if there had to be, not in any free world where everything is equal, but in a system operating where one country was able to impress its values and system of government on other nations, what nation (s) would you pick?
Wouldn't it be nice if we could match up our value systems to the country of our choosing and then go live there? Businesses do it all the time. If you take power, money and nationalism or patriotism out of the equation, you don't have any mental impediments to choosing a system. If the law allows you can go there.
See, I would weigh social system with weather, culture, and happiness factors and come up with something approaching Mediterranean climate, and Swedish system of government, and spicy people like in Spain. I guess the closest I could get would be France huh?
To me, the concept of Geopolitics or Geopolitical refers to an approach or perspective for studying something
including foreign relations...I'm not acquainted with a particular school of Foreign Relations labeled Geopolitical
in the sense of the Rational School of Foreign Relations. Kissinger and Albright identify themselves with the
Rational School...They are also Neoliberals and willing to cooperate with the neoconservatives.
My thought is that Geography has been grossly ignored by US leaders in both domestic politics and world politics.
The same can be said for Anthropogy. The development of US Foreign policy should start with the bodies of
information contained in US Geography and World Geography...
The geopolitical theories of foreign relations developed alongside the realist views of foreign relations and are at the heart of their views
Great Powers and Geopolitical Change You've heard of "geopolitik", well that's what it ultimately means.
Kissinger comes from the geopolitical realist school.
Albright much less, her background made her more concerned with human rights and more wary of "collateral damage".
Neither of them were really neoliberals nor neoconservatives. Can you show me why you think this?
I suppose I am very lucky for a sixth grade teacher named Mr. Jerome Clark, who would not let us out of his class until we could all put a puzzle together that contained all the countries in the world. That, and I've always been fascinated by maps and globes, so I know where just about everything is and who lives there. But, to suggest that politicians haven't based their decisions almost exclusively on geopolitics, whether they knew they were doing so or not, is just not true. They all focused on that issue. Keeping the silk road open, keeping the roads to Rome safe, keeping the shipping lanes in Asia open, keeping the Brits from blockading our harbors, or paying lower tariffs to different states.....the war against Iraq and the war against Somalia were/are all excellent examples of geopolitical driven foreign policy.
Great Powers and Geopolitical Change You've heard of "geopolitik", well that's what it ultimately means.
Kissinger comes from the geopolitical realist school.
Albright much less, her background made her more concerned with human rights and more wary of "collateral damage".
Neither of them were really neoliberals nor neoconservatives. Can you show me why you think this?
I suppose I am very lucky for a sixth grade teacher named Mr. Jerome Clark, who would not let us out of his class until we could all put a puzzle together that contained all the countries in the world. That, and I've always been fascinated by maps and globes, so I know where just about everything is and who lives there. But, to suggest that politicians haven't based their decisions almost exclusively on geopolitics, whether they knew they were doing so or not, is just not true. They all focused on that issue. Keeping the silk road open, keeping the roads to Rome safe, keeping the shipping lanes in Asia open, keeping the Brits from blockading our harbors, or paying lower tariffs to different states.....the war against Iraq and the war against Somalia were/are all excellent examples of geopolitical driven foreign policy.
QUOTE(heart @ Nov 3 2009, 03:30 PM)
The geopolitical theories of foreign relations developed alongside the realist views of foreign relations and are at the heart of their views
Great Powers and Geopolitical Change You've heard of "geopolitik", well that's what it ultimately means.
Kissinger comes from the geopolitical realist school.
Albright much less, her background made her more concerned with human rights and more wary of "collateral damage".
Neither of them were really neoliberals nor neoconservatives. Can you show me why you think this?
I suppose I am very lucky for a sixth grade teacher named Mr. Jerome Clark, who would not let us out of his class until we could all put a puzzle together that contained all the countries in the world. That, and I've always been fascinated by maps and globes, so I know where just about everything is and who lives there. But, to suggest that politicians haven't based their decisions almost exclusively on geopolitics, whether they knew they were doing so or not, is just not true. They all focused on that issue. Keeping the silk road open, keeping the roads to Rome safe, keeping the shipping lanes in Asia open, keeping the Brits from blockading our harbors, or paying lower tariffs to different states.....the war against Iraq and the war against Somalia were/are all excellent examples of geopolitical driven foreign policy.
Great Powers and Geopolitical Change You've heard of "geopolitik", well that's what it ultimately means.
Kissinger comes from the geopolitical realist school.
Albright much less, her background made her more concerned with human rights and more wary of "collateral damage".
Neither of them were really neoliberals nor neoconservatives. Can you show me why you think this?
I suppose I am very lucky for a sixth grade teacher named Mr. Jerome Clark, who would not let us out of his class until we could all put a puzzle together that contained all the countries in the world. That, and I've always been fascinated by maps and globes, so I know where just about everything is and who lives there. But, to suggest that politicians haven't based their decisions almost exclusively on geopolitics, whether they knew they were doing so or not, is just not true. They all focused on that issue. Keeping the silk road open, keeping the roads to Rome safe, keeping the shipping lanes in Asia open, keeping the Brits from blockading our harbors, or paying lower tariffs to different states.....the war against Iraq and the war against Somalia were/are all excellent examples of geopolitical driven foreign policy.
What I am saying is that this is all ass-backwards...this is letting politics influence Geography rather
than letting Geography influence politics. My first professional type job was teaching Geography to 7th graders (2 years). Of course that
was a long time ago and my memory for details isn't good...
Kissinger and Albright both try to keep and expand the Impire and they both try to avoid big wars in favor of a lot of little wars...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.