Should we have allowed Iraq to make its own humanitarian decisions too?
I think they were and are a country that can use some needed guidance and US influence to step back into the global oil economy. I also think the US will go out of its way to make it look like the war was NOT over oil.
While I agree with you that in the end what is best for Iraq should be done - however sometimes the path taken doesn`t always seem to be the correct one at first.
Well then, sign me up.
Yes.
It’s not our place to decide what other countries need “guidance.” We had no right to attack them in first place and we have no right to tell them what to do now.
Actually I’ve noticed a few Ottawa Dopers. Maybe we’ll have to meet at one of the Oaks sometime.
Well I think the chance of re-invasion of Kuwait was pretty much nil. I agree that the American presence in SA had destabilizing effects. That, to me, reinforces the shell game aspect of the Iraq invasion. YMMV. The only reason the current American presence in Iraq might not be considered destabilizing is that the invasion itself kinda reset the bar pretty low. 
A long continued presence will have equally bad reprecussions as if they had stayed in SA, it seems to me. The UN attack might be the start of a downhill slide.
I hope they can get their act together and do some real nation building/facilitating because I’m sure a sudden total withdrawal would be bad news. So my basic stance is, the US is there now so let’s get it done. Also, get the UN into a more serious and responsible role (with the loss of control that entails).
So this whole “Zionism” thing… does this mean the city in Matrix is run completely by Jews?
::d&r::
Grey, re: Collounsbury. You can read/reply on his Live Journal site here
As much as I tend to agree that Israel recieves a disproportionate amount of our concern and support, nonetheless I find it very hard to believe that the deep game to all this insanity is to provide then with an oil pipeline.
Friend Finagle, a quibble, sir. A minor point, perhaps, but thats the trouble with quibbles…
Followed by:
Thats going to need some clafification. I will just assume that your “40%” numbers are accurate. Then, doesn’t that leave some considerable room for manuever? And the “going rate”? Is that the OPEC “going rate” or some number yet to be negotiated between certain special and select customers and a bubberingly grateful, recently liberated Iraqi government?
As long as lal the proceeds form the sale of Iraqi oil go to the Iraqi people, it’s all perfectly legal. Of course, U.S. companies like Haliburton have a huge financial interest in seeing projects like this go forward (indeed, every time terrorists bomb an oil refineries and such, it means big bucks in repair contracts), because they somehow seem to inevtiably end up with the highly lucrative contracts somehow… but that’s not any sort of violation. To the victor go the spoils, even if they are a little more indirect.
I think the pipeline is ridculously stupid at this point in time. It isn’t going to win friends among Iraqis, who are deeply suspicious of our motives. In the current situation (with rouge people bombing and shooting left and right), it’s not safe to operate it (a single nutcase could blow it up, no matter how great their security). Why announce it now?
Realistically, they aren’t going to get repaired any other way unless some Mashall plan materializes.
Tax cuts. Never fails. Next problem?
Very well, let’s quibble and clarify.
First, a quibble. I’m not your friend. That would imply some degree of liking and/or respect.
That said, the 40% figure comes from the article cited by London_Calling.
"Specifically, the reopening of the Trans-Arabian Pipeline (Tapline), which connects the oil fields in eastern Saudi Arabia to the Mediterranean port of Haifa, would result in transportation costs to Europe that are 40 percent less than shipping by tanker through the Suez Canal. "
As for the “going rate”, my only assertion was that there was no reason to think that Iraq was not going to get paid for the oil. This was in response to Latro’s “What is Iraq getting out of this”. What they are getting is a market with cheaper shipping costs. I have no information about the price that will be paid for the oil. Lacking your cynicism and prior assumption of rampant US corporate greed, it’s not unreasonable to believe that both parties can benefit if you save on shipping.
The way I see it Iraqis are either minions or citizens. If indeed they are merely minions in your imperial domain, their opinion is unimportant as this has nothing to do with them, they have no say in it and they can pull their heads in until the raj is in need of coolie labour. If however they are citzens then its something for them to decide and given feelings toward Israel in the arab world they may well decide not to. All other issues, practicality and economic value and whatnot are moot.
So when do the black helicopters carrying UN troops show up?
LOL, sorry, due to budget cuts, they barely have enough black copters for their core mission of keeping down the white man in Idaho.
Support Your Local Black Helicopter.
It seems to me that whatever the US does is going to be met with skepticism and every action is going to have some “ulterior evil intent”. On the other hand, if we do nothing, then we are wrong for that.
It’s a damned shame.
It wasn’t about oil. Sorry, but I just don’t buy into y’alls whole conspiracy evil US/Them B.S.
I’m not a Bush fan and am not proud of some of the crap he’s pulled either. I think his ass deserves an impeachment hearing at the very least. Damn, look how Clinton was treated for his lies/lie.
(I never had sex with her)vs. What? He (GWB) has told so many, where to start?
But, still…so many folks act like “we the people” are trying to screw over Iraq. Damn, you’d think the Illuminati was in charge. 
Anyway, I’ll let ya get back to your US=EVIL thread, have fun.
Hey, I just had to get it off my chest.
P.S. You don’t hand a child the car keys and say go to school, right? When the Iraqi people get their act together (soon I hope) they should be autonomous. They should have been all along. That’s the problem.
Yeah, especially if it ain’t even your own kid - or in this case, the kid of the guy living halfway across the world, whom you happened to move in with because yada yada yada.
Oh yeah?
[my emphasis] Donald Rumsfeld, Pal Wolfowitz et al, January 26, 1998.
It wasn’t all about oil, but it wasn’t not about oil. Not B.S.
. … you going to finish the sentence; what was it about, then ? . . . liberation and freedom for the Iraqi people by the shining beacon of democracy ? destroying that great threat to the West caused by Saddam’s WMD ? breaking up that evil relationship between Saddam and OBL ?
And if you could include an explanation - beyond ‘coincidence’ - of how the US suddenly felt able to announce it was leaving Saudi as the Iraq war concluded, I’m sure many on this board would be most grateful ?
Feel free to reference this Administrations’ policy bible that is The Cheney Report. Plenty of comment on that floating around. Here’s one:
"The impact on world markets is hard to overstate. Saudi Arabia would no longer be the sole dominant producer, able to influence oil markets single-handedly. Given that U.S.-Saudi relations cooled substantially in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks—rifts that may widen further—a Saudi competitor would not be unwelcome in Washington. An unnamed U.S. diplomat confided to Scotland’s Sunday Herald that “a rehabilitated Iraq is the only sound long-term strategic alternative to Saudi Arabia. It’s not just a case of swapping horses in mid-stream, the impending U.S. regime change in Baghdad is a strategic necessity.”
Is that what he meant? What a crap!
If it only were the Iraqis who decided that they will sell their oil to Israel…