|
it was never about oil?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| JohnSmith |
http://www.msnbc.com/news/888057.asp?vts=050920031055
| quote: | | Under the long-awaited plan, the United States would take control of Iraq’s vast oil revenues from the United Nations and give it to the United States and Britain to finance the country’s reconstruction — with international oversight. The United Nations would have a limited, largely advisory role. |
to the victor go the spoils i supppose. it makes me want to puke. |
|
|
| King_Mack |
yay america :rolleyes:
do americans actually agree with what their government body is doing?? |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| I think some got their mouth shut with this!:D |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by King_Mack
yay america :rolleyes:
do americans actually agree with what their government body is doing?? |
No I actually disagree with this policy. I think that the US should have a definite say in the money it is using to rebuild Iraq however, I feel that the UN should be the institution to manage Iraqi oil sales. Although it's not like the US is pocketing the money directly, I fear that the there will be bias in which companies are picked for reconstruction efforts. Hopefully international pressure will push for a greater UN role. |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
well, i'm glad you agree that the US should not just pocket the money.
However, the problem is this. The US has basically rendered the UN "irrelevant" as bush put it.
they have also proven that they don't give a rats ass about public opinion, nor international concerns.
so, how to reason with them? the answer is, you can't. the only way that the US would listen, is if a country had an army to back up their threats, or a large enough economy to hurt them (without bringing their own down to unmanageable levels). since no such country exists, or even conceivably coalition of countries such as germany, france, russia, and china...
well, the US will do whatever it pleases like any schoolyard bully.
but guess what? 10 more terrorists were born while i wrote this, due to your nations arrogance. |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
WEll John,
Did anyone actually think this was about "freedom for the Iraqi people?" :stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
Wait, that's not funny sorry. :( At least all the people who drive ford expeditions and hummer h2s are happy. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| DrummeRaver86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by JohnSmith
well, i'm glad you agree that the US should not just pocket the money.
However, the problem is this. The US has basically rendered the UN "irrelevant" as bush put it.
they have also proven that they don't give a rats ass about public opinion, nor international concerns.
so, how to reason with them? the answer is, you can't. the only way that the US would listen, is if a country had an army to back up their threats, or a large enough economy to hurt them (without bringing their own down to unmanageable levels). since no such country exists, or even conceivably coalition of countries such as germany, france, russia, and china...
well, the US will do whatever it pleases like any schoolyard bully.
but guess what? 10 more terrorists were born while i wrote this, due to your nations arrogance. |
OKay, take it easy dude.
Even if Bush thinks that the UN is irrelevant, he can't ignore it. The UN is no longer the weak League of Nations from the early 1900's. Bush's opinion, though refelctive of the populace, is the thing that is not relevant. If the UN declares that the "problem" over the oil is theirs to solve, and Bush doesn't back off, he'll get himself into a crapload of trouble. Bush is dumb, granted, but he also knows that he can't risk going totally against what the UN says, it'd just be too risky. |
|
|
| occrider |
| Additionally, sanctions MUST be lifted in order to export oil. Without an adopted resolution, no Iraqi, U.S. or U.N. entity in Baghdad has the legal authority to export oil. And if you think that wouldn't work, who would violate UN sanctions to purchase such oil ... Syria :)? The UN hasn't even debated the issue yet, it's too early to arrive at conclusions. |
|
|
| PeacefulWarrior |
| * cough * Haliburton * cough * |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
OKay, take it easy dude.
Even if Bush thinks that the UN is irrelevant, he can't ignore it. |
??!? he can and did. he completely ignored the UN, and attacked iraq anyway. it is relevant, as long as it agrees with the US. if they disagree, then the UN simply gets ignored. |
|
|
| Renegade |
This bit really irked me:
| quote: | | The letter marks the first time the United States has referred to its role in Iraq as an “occupying power,” a status governed by the Geneva Conventions that would entail wide-ranging responsibilities to look after the Iraqi people. Until now, Washington has avoided the term, calling itself a “liberating force.” |
More hypocracy, and yet another example of how the coalition have been able to use subtle shifts in language to smooth over their questionable ambitions. Here in the west we were told that the coalition were not invaders, that they were not there to "occupy" Iraq. They were freedom loving liberators there only to free Iraq from a brutal dictator and install a democracy. Oil was never an issue here of course.
So now as the Iraqi situation slowly takes a backseat to coverage of the SARS virus, the US announce "we are occupiers". Why would they do that? Because an occupying force is free (nay, obliged) to take administrative control of all a nations resources including dem dere purdy little oil-fields. "But", you may well say, "they're only doing that to help reconstruct Iraq!". But I would respond by saying, "why should the Iraqis be forced to pay for the damage caused by the coalition, or for their on going occupation of the nation when the Iraqi people don't even want them there to begin with?".
And so slowly it all falls into place:
1) US wants Saddam out.
2) Sept 11 happens.
3) Window of opportunity for invasion opens in patriotic aftermath.
4) Coalition accuses Iraq of having ties with Al Queida.
5) Coalition accuses Iraq of having WMD.
6) Coalition accuses Iraq of being a massive threat to every nation on Earth and must therefore be stopped.
7) It becomes apparent that none of the above are true, so it becomes a war of "liberation" instead.
8) War happens, statue toppled, photo-op in Baghdad square.
9) Everything looted and burnt except for Oil Ministry and oil wells.
10) Coalition claims now to be occupying force - "liberation? Where's the profitability in liberation?"
11) Control of oil wells seized. Bush's buddies get massive contracts - economy grows, oil prices come down, US dollar still in hot demand.
12) Oil revenue now siphoned into repairing the damage caused by the really, really necessary Shock and Awe tactics and 12 years of oppressive sanctions supported by the coalition.
13) "Wow, this occupation didn't cost us a cent and look at all the benefits we got from it! Can we do Syria next, please, can we?"
Call me cynical.... :rolleyes: |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
the secret PNAC table of contents laid out for you right here by my man renegade.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
1) US wants Saddam out.
2) Sept 11 happens.
3) Window of opportunity for invasion opens in patriotic aftermath.
4) Coalition accuses Iraq of having ties with Al Queida.
5) Coalition accuses Iraq of having WMD.
6) Coalition accuses Iraq of being a massive threat to every nation on Earth and must therefore be stopped.
7) It becomes apparent that none of the above are true, so it becomes a war of "liberation" instead.
8) War happens, statue toppled, photo-op in Baghdad square.
9) Everything looted and burnt except for Oil Ministry and oil wells.
10) Coalition claims now to be occupying force - "liberation? Where's the profitability in liberation?"
11) Control of oil wells seized. Bush's buddies get massive contracts - economy grows, oil prices come down, US dollar still in hot demand.
12) Oil revenue now siphoned into repairing the damage caused by the really, really necessary Shock and Awe tactics and 12 years of oppressive sanctions supported by the coalition.
13) "Wow, this occupation didn't cost us a cent and look at all the benefits we got from it! Can we do Syria next, please, can we?"
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
But I would respond by saying, "why should the Iraqis be forced to pay for the damage caused by the coalition, or for their on going occupation of the nation when the Iraqi people don't even want them there to begin with?".
|
this is the most outrageous thing of all! attack a defensless nation, and then insist that THEY pay for reparations? the US and UK should be paying this. Remember that iraq attacked kuwait and the US subsequently went over and liberated them. after the gulf war, it was iraqs money that had to pay for the reparations to kuwait. (and big surprise most of the contracts went to the americans)
America, we know what you are doing, and we will not stand quietly by for it. |
|
|
|
|
