I was thinking about all the US servicement killed and the billions of dollars we are spending and wondering while we invest all this, we probably wouldn't let any Iraqi's here if they wanted to help themselves by picking our crops, building out homes, cutting our grass, etc.

 

Seems we like our poor, huddled masses, yearning to be free, far, far away.

I was thinking about all the US servicement killed and the billions of dollars we are spending and wondering while we invest all this, we probably wouldn't let any Iraqi's here if they wanted to help themselves by picking our crops, building out homes, cutting our grass, etc.

 

Seems we like our poor, huddled masses, yearning to be free, far, far away.

 

I don't think we'd have a problem with it .... IF they entered the country legally.

I don't think we'd have a problem with it .... IF they entered the country legally.

 

But don't they look like terrorists? Wouldn't they be taking our jobs? Would we allow an unlimited number? Offer them public aid? Is public aid any different than what we are giving now in terms of food, water, and military help?

Are we assuming they are in the exact same situation that they are now in?

But don't they look like terrorists? Wouldn't they be taking our jobs? Would we allow an unlimited number? Offer them public aid? Is public aid any different than what we are giving now in terms of food, water, and military help?

 

As far as I'm concerned, they are more than welcome here as long as they respect our laws. That's not too much to ask is it?

Wouldn't a massive monetary investment in the country to our south actually help to keep people in that country? Mexicans are coming to this country illegally because there is little opportunity for them in Mexico. If the US helped build up their economy and stabilize their government (with even a small percentage of the $ spent in Iraq), there would be much less need for Mexicans to come to the US for work. (See Canada).

Im curious if would care at all about them if there wasnt oil involved. My guess is no.

Im curious if would care at all about them if there wasnt oil involved.  My guess is no.

 

Have we invaded any countries in Africa lately? Have we stopped genocide in countries that have huge oil reserves to go along with huge diamond mines? The whole oil thing makes a great tagline on the 6pm news, in reality, there are a lot of other places in the world we could have invaded if it were purely on a capital good basis.

Have we invaded any countries in Africa lately?  Have we stopped genocide in countries that have huge oil reserves to go along with huge diamond mines?  The whole oil thing makes a great tagline on the 6pm news, in reality, there are a lot of other places in the world we could have invaded if it were purely on a capital good basis.

How many of the countries involved in genocide actually have large oil reserves or large kimberlite pipes?

 

The answer is not many.

 

And on top of that...normally the U.S. interest in African nations goes like this; if the oil keeps flowing, we're happy.

 

Case in point Nigeria has received literally tens of billions of dollars in aid over the last few decades and has lost most of it due to corruption (report on that country just came out), but there has never really been any punishment for it. Why? My guess is that one of the reasons is that the oil keeps flowing.

 

In fact, there is some evidence that Chevron and other U.S. oil companies have even collaborated with the Nigerians in politically motivated killings in that country in order to keep the civilians in line and not protesting (Chevron owned helicopters moving Nigerian forces to oil platforms where they opened fire on protestors asking for better working conditions, etc.)