I doubt they could have sold Iraqi oil in the open market without UN authorization.
If it was “about the oil”, then we would have invaded & taken over Saudi Arabia. We have some justification, most 9-11 terrorist were from SA. SA provides much cash support for terrorists. The government is unstable, and I am sure we could have found a Saudi Prince willing to be our puppet.
Well, the USA could have taken one of 2 positions. 1- There is no more Iraq, thus all sanctions- and DEBTS are now null & void. Been done before, and is legal. And, we could have just shipped all the oil to the USA.
Or, 2; Get the UNSC to allow us free rein in re-buliding Iraq & selling the oil, and not repudiate the debts.
Russia, France & Germany have a shit-load of money invested in Iraqi debt, not to mention they rely on Iraqi oil much more than we do. Is anyone here shocked that France, which claimed a “moral high ground”- took the way of self- interest? :rolleyes:
Sorry DrDeth but that is really stupid. Debts are not magically erased just because you say so. A regime change does not erase any debts. That is plain stupid. And the USA has zero say in that anyway. It is Iraq’s debt and it is Iraq who will have to decide whether to honor their debts or not.
Umm, no. Right now, the “nation formerly known as al Jumhoriya al 'Iraqia” is no longer, and the territory it covered is US property (which, most of us expects to be temporary). There is a US Military Governor in charge, we occupy it (Remeber all those threads where dudes insist the USA has to keep the peace in Iraq, since we are now the occupying power?). However, soveriegn nations have often repudiated their debts (especially after a major government change- Communist Russia being a great example), not to mention nationalized foriegn owned industries. If you are a soveriegn nation- that is what “soveriegn” means- you are only beholden to your own laws, not the laws of other nations. Well, unless those foriegn nations can enforce their claims at the point of a bayonet.
“Iraq” didn’t borrow the money anyway. It was “al Jumhoriya al 'Iraqia”- a sovereign nation that no longer exists. Now, true, the USA, in it’s role as current occupier of the “nation formerly known as…” doesn’t want to piss off all its European “allies”, and “pissed off” is what they would certainly be. Thus, since France knows damn well the USA can ignore the debts brought on by the former government (and the next government can repudiate them- since after all most of the cash went into SH’s pocket), they are being very nice & rubber stamping the USA’s plan. Do you think France is doing this out of “the spirit of international co-operation”? :rolleyes:
Dr Deth
Sorry Doc, I ain’t buying. First of all, your “justification” that the fact that the 9-11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia would be impossible to sell to the public as an excuse to wage war on them. There is no evidence that the Saudi Government was in collusion with Al Qaeda or was protecting them. I’d also like a cite for the statement that the Saudi Government finances terrorists. Second, Iraq would always have been the easiest possible target to sell due to Saddam’s reputation as a dangerous lunatic. Comparisons to Saudi Arabia don’t hold water.
More than there is was or in all likelihood ever will be that Saddam Hussein & his goverment had anything to do with Al Qaeda or the events of 911.
Ahunter3, way I see it, the Adminstrations decision to push that particular fallacious argument (or at least, to hint strongly at it and not deny it in any way shape or form when called in on it) was due to its policy of throwing as much shit as possible at the wall in the hope that some of it would stick.
This war was not about Saddams links with terrorism since there were no tangible links with Al Qaeda or the events of 911 and even if you count Saddam’s popularist policy of funding Palestinian suicide bombers that still doesn’t amount to a true justification to go to war.
This war was not about liberating the Iraqi people since the US government certainly hasn’t given a shit about them during the past 12 years of debilitating sanctions. Nor does it care about the oppressed and disenfranchised in other petroleum deficient countries. Nor, I dare say, will it care if another tinpot dictator gains power and starts trampling on the masses again.
This war was not about locating WMD’s because, well, they don’t fucking exist.
This war was about…
Oil? Anyone?
DrDeth, you are quite wrong. Iraq has not disappeared from the map. In any case, I am not going to waste time on this. Nobody in any position to do so has even suggested that Iraq repudiate their debts. If and when they do it then we can talk. In the meanwhile you are defending something the US is not even planning on doing.
BTW, by the same reasoning, if Iraq is no longer, then any deposits in foreign banks or any properties located abroad could be taken to compensate any debts as the new Iraq would have no title to them.
DrDeth said:
“Umm, no. Right now, the “nation formerly known as al Jumhoriya al 'Iraqia” is no longer, and the territory it covered is US property”
:eek: I have to admit that my eyes nearly popped out of their sockets upon reading that; so now how would the US name the nation formerly know as al Jumhoriya al 'Iraqia? In any case I´d really LOVE to see a cite for Iraq (or whatever you like to call it) beign US property. Funny… I thought that the deal was to liberate the Iraqi people… at least that was the last I was told; not to conquest the country. :rolleyes:
It is amazing how this type of ignorant supposition will get around. The US government so far has not alleged any such principle but some people will defend it anyway. In another thread elucidator proposed the same thing and I believe it has been established there that it is not true.
well, it seems the general feeling over here is that Bush wanted someone’s head in return for what happened on 9-11 and chose Saddam as it meant he would be seen to be doing “something”. There was also talk about him trying to follow in his father’s footsteps - his father has a lot more respect from the British people than Bush jr will ever have. (people here laughed when a president who had ever set foot out of his own country was elected)
Some British people now hold it against Blair for dragging us to a war we were totally against. We waited and waited for the proof of WMD and are still waiting. Blair seems to have alienated us from Europe (proved in a small way last night during the Eurovision song contest which we know is Always political in the background where we didn’t receive so much as 1 vote and apart from the fact our entry was basically crap, it was felt that the voting reflected what the rest Europe thought of us.) I think it has severely damaged our relations. Blair IS Bush’s puppet but at the same time, WE don’t want to govern Iraq - we want this country to get back on it’s feet and be self-governing - and free from Saddam and his counterparts. As for the oil issue? Yes, there’s been an underlying debate that Bush wants to control the oil - and it could well be true - but apparently America only import 25% of their oil from there - statistics anounced during the war on television to try to dampen this train of thought - so here we are - questions still being asked and not too many answers forthcoming…
Who is currently in charge in Iraq? A US Governor, placed there by GWB. Now, yes, we claim- and I beleive- the situation is temporary, but nevertheless, “Iraq” is currently US Territory. I don’t know what the new name would be, but likely not the old name, and more like “Democratic Republic of Iraq”.
Ben- I never said the SA government was providing cash to the terrorists. Don’t put words in my mouth. The point I made is still correct- if, as all the liberal here would have us belive- all the reason we had for invading Iraq were all lies & propaganda anyway- we could have simply taken the truth about SA’s support for Al-qaeda, magified it a bit, made up some crap, and sold the uSA on taking over SA. and, we already had troops there, it could have been a coup, rather than an “invasion”. Besides, we don’t get much oil from Iraq, and they don’t produce anything like SA does anyway.
Sailor- true, we have not made that claim- yet. And I doubt that we will- now. Do you really think France rolled over in the SC because of “international comraderie”? :rolleyes: No, they rolled over because they knew the “stcik” of debt repudiation was there, behind our back- and if we did, the current French administration might topple. A “stick” that would make the USA very unpopular overseas, but hey, we aren’t very well liked there anyway.
Note that nations do also repudiate their debts through something very like bankruptcy. When nations do repudiate their debts, yes- Sailor- their assets overseas are very often frozen or siezed. And their credit is shit. However, usually just the threat of repudiation is enough to get lender nations to make concessions on debts, such as eliminating interest, etc.
Note that Communist Russia made that claim about the Tsarist debts also. Put it simply- a soveriegn nation can pretty well do what it wants, and short of war, there isn’t much other nations can do to force them to do otherwise.