Once and for all, who’s kidding who here?
CNN today reported that the US is seeking control of the Iraqi oil industry, counting on weary UN diplomats to roll over in the face of another debate.
I agree that the UN sanctions should be lifted in light of Hussein’s fall, but not with this setup replacing it. Now that there is not a dictator in control, I believe the Iraqis are fully capable of nandling their own affairs, with consultation from allies of their choosing. Iraq for the Iraqis!
uh excuse me. The Iraqis dont even have a provisional govt set up yet. The ones that are meeting with Garner are opposed by the Shiites who want an Islamic govt with only clerics as leaders. there is no Iraqi authority that a large portion of iraqis do not oppose. As such, it would be better for the mean time (about a year or so) for the govts that are enforcing the peace to handle business while the Iraqis decide which person is going to lead them and how. The vote has to be agreed upon. Until then, someone has to handle business for them.
Now that is not to say that the americans and British will handle all of the business and leave the Iraqis out. Iraqi ministers will still run what they can and get help if they need it. The resolution just allows the US to do business for the Iraqis to prevent any holdups or snags or redtape. Thats why the UN is vital to be in this board to check the US and British handling of business. The Iraqis will have to keep their eye on the US and Britain and the UN will make sure they keep all profits for Iraq.
The point is, X~Slayer, why not have the UN assemble a multinational committee to oversee the fund, instead of placing it solely in the hands of the U.S. and Great Britian? That way, everyone would be assured that the Amercians aren’t gaming the system to its own benefit.
(But this is actually fair and doesn’t benefit the U.S., so fat chance that it’ll happen)
Uh huh. And what assurances are there that the UN bureaucrats wouldn’t end up gaming the system to THEIR benefit? Oil-for-food seems increasingly not too have worked as claimed.
The best idea I have heard is an Oil Trust for the benefit of Iraqis. Colin Powell was asked about it last week. Let’s see if that ends up being the plan.
As a Brit, I am wholly in favour of a multi-national committee rather than a bi-national one.
As someone who knows quite a few Iraqis, I am extremely confident that they will kick the sorry butts of anyone who tries to exploit them. They won’t suffer a second Saddam, whatever guise it takes…
I am with bbonden
Theres no guarantee the UN can do any better even with the veil of propriety. The UN would be there to check the US and Brits, at least you know right away who is messing up. If you have the UN there, whos going to check on the UN? How do we know who is “gaming” the system? Is it the french, the russians, the germans, the jordanians, the saudis…if the UN screws up, do we blame the UN or the parts of the UN?
Best thing to do is to do this as efficiently, effectively and as openly as possible and the faster the Iraqis decide on their new govt and leader, the faster we can hand off this whole business to them.
as far as sufferng another Saddam, my opinion is that they havent gotten over Saddam yet. The brainwashing that Saddam did to the Iraqi people is still very fresh in their minds, anyone with Saddams charisma and a little bit of power can take over where Saddam left off. Thats why the US and British troops are there to make sure no one does that. It took decades for Saddam to firmly entrench himself into the minds and hearts of the Iraqi people. That kind of influence doesnt disappear in a month or even 3 especially from a people who didnt rise against it themselves. Given time, they will re-learn how to protect themselves, but for the meantime, someone should be there to help them.
I picture Iraq like a malnourished Lion too weak to stand up against what it considers its greatest enemy, the US. No matter how angry or humiliated the Lion is, the US will help it to get stronger until it is strong enuf for the US to leave it be. The US is not there to cage the lion or teach it to do tricks in a show. It is there for now to help it get better. The US doesnt begrudge the lion for being mistrustful but swiping at the US just makes it more difficult to help the lion. Hopefully, when the lion is strong and powerfull again, it remembers who took care of it when no one else would, But the US knows that a lion will always be a lion and must be respected for that.
X~Slayer(ALE):
To quote scotandrsn, who’s kidding who here?
**
You bring up an interesting point here. The candidates for Iraq’s up-coming elections will, I presume, be drawn from the Iraqis that Garner is meeting with. Yet, as you said, the Shiites are opposing these Garner-cronies. And the Shiites, as a sector of society, constitute over 60% of that nation’s population. Doesn’t this relegate the elections that will be held to a PR farce presenting a fake democratic image? I figured that the US would provide candidates for the election that are to their liking. If they let the Iraqis truly decide who they wish to vote for, they might (hell, would most likely) come up with yet another anti-American leader. So all this bullshit about a democratic government for the Iraqis and by the Iraqis is just more fodder for anyone inclined to blindly accept what Bush & Co. say without question.
And what are the Iraqis to do if, while keeping an eye on the US and Britain, they find they are getting a raw deal? What could they do? Stage a protest? The Iraqis’ protests haven’t been a raging success for them so far.
And what will the UN do if they suspect the US/British handling of business to be less than honorable? Have the security council vote on what to do about it? The US and Britain didn’t take much notice of the UNSC on the issue of the invasion.
Is the UN making sure that Iraq is keeping these profits:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86242,00.html ???
According to the above story, a payout for victims of 9/11 will come from “money from frozen Iraqi, bin Laden and Al Qaeda assets.” It seems that money from Iraq is already bound for the US in some pretty hefty sums. Is this a sign of what is to come? And what about the profits that companies like Bechtel make from the reconstruction? You think Bechtel is going to take the profits from the rebuild that are bound for US stock holders and company owners and just donate all that to the Iraqis? I’m betting not.
Hell of way to stimulate the economy, eh. Take tax-payers money, and spend it on a military invasion. Then take some more tax-payer dollars and spend that on contracts to a construction company to rebuild the buildings that were blown up. Take another load of tax-payer bucks and award another contract to an oil industry services corp. so that they can get the oil wells pumping to capacity. Defense contractors, Bechtel, Haliburton, etc. are going to get the economy steaming again. Who needs tax cuts to stimulate growth? Just invade a country.
I don’t think the US or Britain should be managing anything in Iraq. To let the US make money off the war is to condone imperialism, plain and simple. I say let France, Germany, Russia and China rebuild Iraq. If a precedent is set whereby the perpetrators of war don’t get a red cent out of the rebuilding process, then further wars might be discouraged. Can’t see Bush going for that idea, though.
well, lets see.
Now lets stop this statistical manipulation arguement right here and now. Yes I agree that 60 percent of the Iraqi population is made up of Shiites and yees I agree that shiites want an Islamic govt. What I dont agree is that ALL of the shiites want an islamic govt.
Lets do a little calculation here: 60 percent of Iraq are shiites. Half of them are women. Women will most likely have NO part in that govt and will probably lose most of the freedoms they had while under Saddam. Now any educated person will tell you that any govt that has less freedoms than a despotic regime SUCKS! So they just lost the votes from women.(not that they were counting on them voting in the first place) That leaves only 30 percent of the entire Iraqi population. Still substantial but certainly not the majority anymore.
Now my contention is that there will be some Shiites who are not fundamentalists and would consider a democratically elected official, secular or cleric, to be acceptable. Lets say these shiite men are only 25%. that leaves you with less than a quarter of the whole population of Iraq and thats being generous. The sunnis had a better justification than that.
Now what fake democratic image were you talking about?
The UN has the World bank to back up its advisors. It accounts for every dinnar spent by the US. If the Iraqis find some monkeying with the books they File a protest, not go to the streets. This UN resolution proposal would give the US and Britain the authority to spend Iraq money to rebuiild Iraq, the UN advisor can take that away. If all your rabid insinuations were true, why does the US and Britain go to this step with the UN? why not just take over the country and call the UN irrelevant? Why would the US open itself up for criticism when it has the power to take over the Iraq right now? If any of what you post comes true, then take action, but as of now please put a cite here about any wrongdoing was done so far. I am not talking about possible wrongdoing, not what appears to be wrongdoing or looks to be wrongdoing, not what smells like wrongoing, not any alleged wrongdoing, but actual and proven wrongdoing.
I think the US/UK Coalition will put what is essentially a “puppet government” in place, while loudly proclaiming the birth of democracy and the need to keep out terrorist elements. In a few years (somewhere between two and five in my humble opinion), this will have a uniting effect on the repressed population, who will revolt against the puppet givernment. Then we get to see whether the US/UK pour military aid into the country to support the “democratic government” (cf Israel) or whether they cut their losses (cf Iran).
For historical perspetive, look at the events between about 1920 and 1930 at
this site and various pages around here. Here’s just a little to whet your appetite.
1919.01.10
Britain formed state of Iraq from Mesopotamian villayets of Basra, Baghdad and Mosul
British civil administration was set up in Iraq almost identical to India, with British officials controlling every position. The Commissioner, Sir Arnold Wilson, saw his duty as bestowing the gifts of British civilisation without ever having to justify their presence. To make it more palatable to the outside world, London planned to install a puppet monarch, but they dithered so long that they finally asked for a plebiscite on the best form of government. Wilson earnestly thought he knew what was best for Iraq and that the people were too ignorant to govern themselves, so he manipulated a series of phoney plebiscites to give the result he wanted. After a puppet government was installed, several hundred British civil servants moved in expecting a very long imperial tenure.
Wilson’s arrogant administration was precisely the miracle that for the first time gave all Iraqis a sense of national identity and purpose. Even the centuries-old Sunni-Shia conflict was put aside. So by the time the League of Nations confirmed the British Mandate in April 1920, that was the signal for revolt.
1920.04.25
League of Nations established British Mandate over Iraq
1920.05
Arab insurrection against British
The British managed to suppress the 1920 revolt at great expense, but they also understood some of the problem. Wilson was replaced by Sir Percy Cox who was sympathetic to Arab aspirations. Cox got rid of the India Office crowd and replaced them with leading orientalists and native administrators whose goal was self-determination. Within a year, the terms of the Mandate were replaced with an Anglo-Iraqi treaty of alliance.
1921.08.23
Hashemite Kingdom of Iraq established under British protectorate (after King Faisal had been rejected as ruler of Syria by the French)
**
Statistical manipulation? I referred to the Shiites as constituting over 60% of the population. Raw fact, son. No manipulation necessary. Manipulation would be taking that fact and re-molding it to represent something that you would like it to be. Example follows:
**
Now if that isn’t statistical manipulation, X~Slayer(ALE), I don’t know what is. It took me ten minutes to follow all the loops and twists just to work out exactly what you were saying!
You’ve used as an opening to your argument that you disagree that ALL Shiites want an Islamic government. No shit? You think you might be able to find some within several million that see things a little differently to the others? Sorry, piss-poor effort to make your argument seem logically sound.
Let’s break down your argument. Your point rests critically on the supposition that all of the women hold opposing positions to the men. From what I’ve seen in most cultures, most family units tend to hold similar views on such broad political matters. Especially in a culture where I understand men to hold definite seniority in marriages, I would think that most women would vote exactly as their husbands would. Whether it is right or wrong that women follow the men’s lead is beside the point. Democracy is based upon a majority rule. It doesn’t say anything about it being unfair if……… Bush has said time and time again that he is bringing democracy to Iraq. Is that a democracy only if the majority of Iraqis want what the Bush wants?
From here the basis for your argument gets even more dubious, if that’s possible. You’re saying that 25% of the Shiite men would be happy for the US to appoint the candidates for them to vote upon. From what I have seem in the news of the protests, this is ludicrous. Tens of thousands of protesters have protested US occupation in Shiite parts of the country. While “tens of thousands” does not constitute the entirety of the Shiites, that this many turned out in one place at one time on what seemed to be short notice, indicates that this is a very good indication of vast popular opinion. I can only assume that you haven’t been keeping an eye on the news headlines or that you are in denial.
**
The one where the candidates are rigged up to be US puppets. If the majority doesn’t want any of the candidates in power, then “majority rules” falls on its face, doesn’t it sport.
**
Oh, so the US are taking notice of what the UN adjudicates now? Just like when they invaded Iraq without UNSC approval? Seems to me the US only plays ball when all decisions go their way. If they can’t win then they don’t play!
**
Rabid insinuations? Sir, re-read your own post and see if you can spot some over-zealous and fanatical elements to your own argument. Start with the effort to justify your stance with the assumption that all Shiite women will oppose a Shiite cleric leadership. Sheesh! And as for the insinuations, I’m not insinuating anything. I’m saying quite bluntly that the US invaded Iraq for its own economic reasons and that it is abhorrent that it even try to gain control of Iraqi resources, whatever the invented justification.
**
Umm, didn’t Bush already do that?
**
Open itself up for criticism? Do you live in a closet? The criticism has been flying thick and hard from all corners of the globe. Has the power to take over Iraq? The US has already taken over Iraq! That’s the problem. Now they are merely trying to dance past further criticisms of blatant imperialism. UN measures are just convenient for critics to point to and say, rightly, “Hey, you guys are violating international resolutions. What’s the deal?”
**
Wrongdoing? Let’s start with invading a sovereign nation that was in no way making any aggressive moves towards its neighbors, let alone the US, killing thousand of innocent civilians and defending troops in the process.
Oh, I see. So if one observes a dangerous pattern of behavior and extrapolates likely scenarios of where it will lead, then one should ignore the obvious and continue to watch CNN. So at what point do you take action and speak up? Should the Germans have spoken up when Hitler’s armies invaded Austria?
…and they want control for a whole year, too.
I thought they’d be out of there in 3 months, originally?
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=33&si=970762&issue_id=9172
US seeks absolute power to rule in Iraq for a year
AMERICA and Britain asked the international community yesterday to grant them a sweeping mandate to rule Iraq as “occupying powers” for at least a year, effectively relegating the United Nations to an advisory role.
A toughly-worded draft resolution, handed to the UN Security Council, called for the immediate lifting of 12 years of sanctions against Iraq and the use of oil revenues to fund reconstruction.
Despite several ringing clauses about the duties of a UN special co-ordinator for Iraq, critics will say it falls far short of the “vital role” agreed by Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W Bush last month.
While the draft spoke of the UN supporting, facilitating or promoting the creation of a new Iraq, the military victors laid claim to absolute control of Iraq’s oil revenues, the assets of the former regime, and the process of forming a future Iraqi government.
This set the stage for a new battle within the Security Council, with France and Russia indicating concern. President Jacques Chirac said France would discuss the resolution in “an open and constructive spirit”, but repeated his desire for the UN to play a “central role”. Chirac declined to be more specific.
Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s UN ambassador, said only that Moscow had a “long list” of questions.
Despite sharp questioning of elements of the draft - notably its silence over any return for UN weapons inspectors - the mood in the Security Council appeared battle weary.
Many smaller countries are reluctant to revisit the bitter fights that preceded the toppling of Saddam Hussein. The draft calls for the immediate lifting of restrictions imposed after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, except for the arms embargo.
Britain supports the return of UN inspectors, arguing that the world will be more likely to believe any discovery of banned weapons if it is verified by international inspectors.
Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, held the door ajar. He said the security situation was too perilous for UN civilian inspectors to operate inside Iraq now, but their return “might very well make sense” at some point.
He said America would keep as many troops as were needed in Iraq - “as long as it takes” to allow rebuilding “in a fashion politically and economically that makes sense”. The resolution would phase out the oil-for-food programme after four months.
It calls for all proceeds from oil sales to be placed in an Iraqi Assistance Fund controlled by the US and Britain, “until such time as a new Iraqi government is properly constituted and capable of discharging its responsibilities”.
Meanwhile, three US soldiers were killed when a helicopter crashed into the Tigris River in northern Iraq. The UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter crashed near Samarra, between Baghdad and Tikrit, in what appeared to be an accident. (© Daily Telegraph, London)
David Rennie
in Washington
Although I have been antiwar from the start, I never really believed those who claimed that this war was about gaining control of Iraq’s oil. I now have to admit that I was wrong.
Isn’t it irresponsible for the US to expect the Iraqis to pick up the tab to repair the damage we caused? I thought that when this stupid war began, that we, as the aggressors, would take care of that (although I didn’t approve as a taxpayer).
I just saw something on CNN which stated that if half of the Iraq oil income was used to pay off the reconstruction that it would take 35 years to do so. Does that not raise the possibility that Iraq will be impoverished for that length of time? Some liberators we are.
Bob