Well for starters the Iraq war had a lot to do with oil.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/4354269.stm
There is more evidence but I really thought this was common knowledge. Most others have accepted it, they just make excuses for it.
You're right, but with thousands of lives being lost because of wars the dirty tactics involved effect more people. Also it is the big oil companies I was talking about. If I were talking about corruption in the diamond industry I wouldn't talk about the oil industry.
The UN is pretty minimal in corruption compared to many large corporations and many governments.
I'm not familiar to the extent of that but if they are controlling their own oil instead of other countries oil I see no correlation.
Why? The oil industry is making a lot of money while the oil is available. They will be making a lot more money when the oil is scarce. When the oil is gone they can break out all these alternative resources and start making money on them. It's about control.
Yes, Catzmeow said it. Post # 290. I even have the quote in my response.
Too funny. You actually believe that.
Especially the interests of the oil companies and those politicians who have direct ties to these oil companies.
Who said anything about stealing oil. It is about the control of oil. Controlling the flow. Control of the refineries. Controlling the transport of oil. Controlling the market. Controlling the prices. Controlling the profits.
And who is profiting from that the most?

__________________
America's Enemies Are Not Mine

All wars represent a failure of diplomacy

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts.

I quoted Article 2 IV because that was the part relevant to the arguement.

None of the other parts of Article 2 you have posted negate part IV.

Let's look at the Article as a whole if you prefer:

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

If it helps - put the word "AND" after everyone of these principles - becuase the Article clearly states that a signatory to the Charter shall act in accordance with ALL of those principles


Now lets look at the Article again, this time including the parts you claim I deliberately and mischeviously omitted
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

AND

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

AND

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Invading Iraq is not a matter that is "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state" - so part VII is not relevant here, and there is no question that the UNSC is in any way threatening the sovereignity of the USA. However - by undertaking the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state without sanction for this use of force granted by the Security Council under the provisions of Article 39, ie. in a manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, the USA, Australia the UK etc. all acted illegally.

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

It makes sense to me.


I think you drifted off here.


About the US patent laws. I know the US has a "first To Invent Patent" law which is different elsewhere which have the "First To File" law. I also know there are a lot of loopholes in these patent laws that many corporations with high paid lawyers take advantage of.

I know for a fact that someone I knew held a patent for a certain type of pine cone retriever in Canada in the 80's ...and now that exact patent is held in the US.

__________________
America's Enemies Are Not Mine

All wars represent a failure of diplomacy

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts.

OK - so you have no problem with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children as a result of an illegal, unprovoked invasion.

So why did the US, Australain and UK governments lie about WMDs then? Why did they carry out the farce of trying to secure a UN Resolution to enforce Resolution 1441? Why didn't they just say:
Your lifestyle is maintained by the American reliance on petroleum - so we will invade another country, drop cluster bombs on their civilian population and take their oil from them. We will ignore our responsibilities as signatories to the UN Charter and carry out a gross act of terrorism. Have a nice day.?

__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P

Read up on both supply and demand. Then the laws of thermodynamics.


Nope, its called a transition.


You should read a bit more on the subject.

Your patent laws differ from ours. But either or. If you register one in your country, and I register it in the US (or vice versa) then no patent has been infringed upon. There are checks and balances in place for the global market, but it gets a bit more tricky.

Regardless, if I make a product (or an idea for a product, US patent law does not require that the product be made or even feasible for a patent issue) and the patent is pending, or is issued, I can sell rights to you, and you can also produce for profit that product. But that does not mean that I can no longer produce it myself for profit, or sell rights to others.

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.

And, nothing there negates article 51. But yes, what I posted did pertain to the discussion at hand. Please try again. Note the first part of my post.

And I ask yet again. If it were illegal, where are the sanctions against the US?

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.

Well there buddy, if it was about oil and getting Iraq's oil, why the hell has the price of oil continued to climb?

__________________
Someone hijacked my sig again.

Read the bottom of post #311.

If the US keeps instability in the region, the prices go up. Who benefits most from these profits? The oil business does. Are there any members of the Bush Administration directly tied to oil. you bet your sweet @ss.


Fighting wars for oil is not for the benefit of the people. It is for the benefit of the oil companies.

__________________
America's Enemies Are Not Mine

All wars represent a failure of diplomacy

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts.

The US would veto them anyway.

__________________
America's Enemies Are Not Mine

All wars represent a failure of diplomacy

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts.

This might sound petty, but I have a question for you: If the price of oil had actually dropped significantly (like everybody at first seemed to think would happen), would you actually be in favor of the war? Please be willing to accept the hypothetical situation.

__________________
People are called "human beings" when somebody is trying to make a moral or emotional appeal to somebody else. Why are dead people not called "human beens"?