More Wars for oil? Only if we need oil. We owe nothing to the 3rd world turds and their hell hole of a nation. bomb them take what we need, no weakness, and if we lose, then we deserve to lose because of weak knee politicians. Do what needs to be done, American rights are for American citizens. Peace through strength, Strength though courage.
We will always need oil as long as the oil companies control half (maybe more) of the government, as they do now. We have numerous alternatives which can be practically applied if the government and their oil bedfellows allowed it.
I think there are limits to the extent that European colonialism caused the problems in third world countries. Take the USA for example, we were a British colony once, and yet we are now the largest economic power in the world. China, once divided into “spheres of influence” by Europeans, experienced a great surge of economic growth in the last twenty years.
As for the impoverished countries, I would place more blame on corrupt politicians and anti-business economic policies. Haiti isn’t impoverished because of its history as a French colony. Haiti is impoverished because it’s nearly impossible to run a business with corrupt officials demanding bribes.
I disagree with whitelocust on foreign policy though. I believe we should respect the property rights of people in other countries the same way we do with our own citizens. Conquest morally unjustifiable. However, if a foreign country confiscates a resource from the private sector, we would be justified in protecting our interests so long as we do so by maximizing economic freedom. Therefore, if Iraq nationalizes its oil, we would be justified in returning the wells to whoever owned them previously.
I agree and disagree with your views. You are right that impoverished countries are plagued by more than European colonization, for example the corrupt politicians you speak of. But the fact is that America became a “European” state, in that the inhabitants were mostly of European descent. This is not true in other European colonies, such as Haiti or countries in Africa. I believe that also contributes to the conditions in those countries.
You point out that we would be justified in returning the oil to the corporation that owned it before Iraq nationalized it. I have to disagree, as I strongly believe the government is the “true” owner of the land and should be allowed to use its land however it wants, as long as it doesn’t attack others. What moral justification is there for a foreign corporation to go into another (probably unstable) country and rape their land for profits? I don’t see much difference there than bombing the land. Either way, it’s unjustifiable, unless the government and the people allow it.
If you regard a nation as the having a higher claim to property than the individual or corporation that previously owned it, then you are traveling down a dangerous road that has a bleak end. Using Middle East oil as an example, the corporation that lawfully invested time and resources into drilling a well has a moral claim to that well and the oil it produces. The government has no right to take over that well without the consent of the owners. The purpose of government is to enforce property rights. It has no right to infringe on them.
You mention the problem of “raping the land,” by which you seem to mean environmental destruction that harms the inhabitants of that land. Let us assume the oil produced in Iraq goes to a refinery along the coast which dumps waste into the Persian gulf, “raping the land,” and the fishermen suffer as their catches decrease in quality and quantity. Then the government of Iraq would have the duty to force the owners of the refinery to compensate the fishermen and to stop violating their property (the fishing grounds) by enforcing environmental regulations that prevent the destruction of the fish populations.