…
I mean the term ‘regime change’ implies a bit more involvement than the first gulf war. What level of invasion/occupation do they (USA) have to achive to get the iraqis’ considerable oil supplies?
What are the precedents for modern ‘spoils of war’? Is it written into law somewhere?
PS: I dont want this to turn into a GD.
If we wanted to, all we’d have to do is secure their oil fields and not worry about advancing to Baghdad and toppling Saddam. So in that sense, I think it’d be pretty easy, assuming we could quickly put the oil well fires out once the Iraqi forces withdrew.
Assuming the military campaign is about regime change and liberation, then we’re not going to secure any oil fields with the intent of keeping them. And while I’m not sure if it’s actually written into international law, I am sure that if we did secure oil for our own ends, it’d be condemned by the UN and so very illegal in that sense.
Browsing around on Google under “Geneva convention spoils war looting”, I turned up the interesting fact that there are evidently rules for this somewhere.
In Kosovo…
http://www.tenc.net/book/book9.htm
So then “international laws war geneva convention” brought me this, among many other hits, which nearly knocked over my coffee cup with its deluge of information (“Wah!!”)
I have no clue whether taking over Iraq’s oil fields would constitute “looting” or “criminal behavior”, but evidently, if Bush did want them, I assume that somewhere in the Geneva Convention there are rules governing how he would go about it.
<< passes ball to international law experts >>
<< resumes drinking coffee >>
And I just want to add that it was something I had been wondering about, too.
The idea is to dominate the Middle East and control its oil. Credible articles to this effect have appeared in the press over the past month or so. Iran would be squeezed between a US occupied Afganistan and a US occupied Iraq. (You don’t really think the US invaded Afganistan just to catch one man, did you?)
Syria would be next as it is insufficiently compliant with US policy. This is why no state in the Middle East will support current US policy there. They believe Iraq is the first domino. They are right.
The world is rapidly learning the meaning of “rogue state”.
Cite to a “credible article” please? I suppose the CIA actually was responsible for 9/11 as a pretext to setting up the squeeze play on Iran, right? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Well, under the Charter of the United Nations, a state cannot threaten the territorial integrity or political independence of another state:
Since the U.S. is a member of the U.N., I assume it intends to follow this principle, hence the talk of “regime change” as the goal, not the establishment of an American colony in Iraq.
It strikes me that that is pretty much the whole idea of invading Iraq. It can’t be exclusively to get American’s minds off the economy and domestic problems. Of course there is the side issue of helping Bush’s buddies to win control of the House and Senate.
Am I being too cynical?
For GQ, yes. So is Galen. Both of you can take it to GD.
.
Muad’Dib, I’ve removed your GD comment. I have the mother of all toothaches right now, and it is an extremely poor time to fuck with me or turn this forum into GD.
So Don’t.
It suddently occurst to me that you might have meant your question in a GQ, as opposed to GD fashion. If so, you didn’t provide enough background to prevent this from becoming GDish or even Pit material (trust me on that).
If that’s the case, please re-post your question with some additional background to it and I’m confident you can get your answer.
In the meantime if someone could provide the General Answer of why it takes two hours to fill a freaking generic vicodin scrip, I’d certainly appreciate it. 
Ow, that smiley hurt.
I know that this is all opinion, but this is not a yes/no question. I think is is fair to say that having braved hostile international opinion, the US will not want to confirm the fears of it’s doubters and enemies.
An obvious precedent would be any surrender that includes reparations.
The likely scenario for Iraq is that the U.S. will simply let them sell oil at full steam on the market, and use the money to rebuild their own infrastructure.
In the meantime, a government will be installed that’s representative of U.S. values. That by definition means it will be friendly to the U.S., which will lead to more open markets between the two countries, including a market for oil.
So yes, in one sense overthrowing Iraq will result in more and cheaper oil for the United States.
But the U.S. will still be buying it, at world market prices. They aren’t about to plunder Iraq. As I said, the closest they’ll come to that will be to use Iraq’s oil revenues to rebuild the country.
Well, I’m sitting here browsing around on Google some more, under “spoils of war geneva convention” and so far all I’m finding is that the phrase “spoils of war” apparently refers to small items, like artwork and other “cultural artifacts”, and like the personal property of captured GIs.
http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/faq/policy_05.htm
http://www.dhh-3.de/biblio/bremen/sow4/rlaw2.html
It’s hard to see how the Iraqi oil fields would fit into this. So maybe they’d be classed as simply “conquered territory”, not “spoils of war”.
If, that is, our goal was to conquer and hold Iraq, not merely a “regime change”…
So the answer to the OP’s (and my) question would seem to be, “Nobody ‘gets’ the oil–the Iraqis get to keep it themselves, whatever happens.”
Sorry about the toothache, Manny. 
It’s my understanding that Russia and France have considerable oil interests in Iraq, and at least part of the reluctance of those nations to support the US is the unresolved question of whether those oil contracts would be honored by a new regime.
::raises hands and back slowly away from manhattan
I heard on NPR this week that in the congressional hearings the concept of pumping enough oil after the war to “pay ourselves back for the war expenses” came up. I want to say that Rumsfeld was the source of that idea, but I cannot remember for sure. I’m surprised that no one else has brought that up in this thread.
I went to here to look for the report, and I think it should be the hearings link on Sept. 20. Unfortunately, that link of all the links on the page, appears to be incorrectly assigned.
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/mideast/transcripts/index.html
Duane
Muad’Dib looks wide eyed at the edited post
Jeez, sorry. I will do a bit more research on the question and post it elsewhere.
It is not as simple as USA directly taking the oil. When the new regime is installed it wil open the way for better oil deals with the US. This will be a huge boost to the US economy.
Recent newspaper reports have stated that the US has been cut out of recent oil deals and Iraq has recently sealed new supply contracts with European oil companies. I am sure the US would like these contracts rewritten to allow the US cheap access to this oil, as spoke posted:
This may be bordering on a GD, so her is one reference: http://www.iht.com/articles/70789.htm