One simple word.
He who controls the country, controls the oil.
Convince me it’s not true.
I would find the US/UK internationally obligated to use the oil strictly for the rebuilding of Iraq. If they don’t, it’ll be apparent and the backlash would be enormous.
As for not wanting the UN… well, the UN was impotent in preventing this war and actually disarming Iraq in the first place, so why trust them to run the country afterwords?
It was said by many people, many times during the debate about the war, that, the UN’s strength was in the period after wars. The rebuilding phase.
So what has changed?
As for the oil profits. Whoever brings it out of the ground will get their cut. Count on it.
You are absolutely right, Reeder. He who controls the country, controls the oil, and it will be up to the USA to make sure that he who controls Iraq is going to be Iraqi and that there will be no French, Russian, German, Chinese reminders of past contracts made to Saddam Husien. Its going to be a new deal.
So you think it’s all to keep the countries you named hands off of the oil?
You are right. Let’s keep all those ill gotten oil profits in American hands where they belong!
:rolleyes:
Why would the US want the UN to help run post war Iraq?
Its not as if the UN actually gave any assistance towards helping the US topple Hussein.
There used to be a story told that was about a little red hen who went to great lengths to bake some bread. She asked all her neighbors to help, but they all refused. Finally, after much work, she had accomplished baking her bread(all by herself). It was then that her neighbors came asking for her newly baked bread. The hen told them all to go to hell, which is what the US should do with the UN.
Hermann Cheruscan
How many innocent civilians died in your allegory?
Ohmigosh, you’re right! {{picture me slapping a hand on my forehead in shock}} We’re being so stooopid going into Iraq and removing Saddam from power! We should just forget about the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives he’s lost through multiple wars, food deprivation, torture, imprisonment and murder. Better we should just let him get right back to it.
This says it all: :rolleyes:
NaSultainne
So lets kill more civilians and that will make the others that died better.
:rolleyes:
NaSultainne
So lets kill more civilians and that will make the others that died better.
:rolleyes:
There’s a lot more than oil in the Iraqi pork barrel: Congressman Darrell Issa is pushing for the rebuilt Iraqi cellular network to be built according to the American technical standard, CDMA, to benefit American companies, rather than GSM, the European standard that it had before, and that all the surrounding countries have.
You know, I often wish the best retort was a simple :rolleyes:. Sadly, most people on the SDMB use well thought out rhetoric to combat another’s point, not arrogant and blind attacks.
No one doubts that civillians have died, and will died in this war, both by the accidental hands of coalition forces and the sadistic cruelties of Saddam’s regim. I don’t think the last American civillian has died either, and remember Reeder, over 3,000 American civillians died on September 11th, 2001. No one said war was clean and perfect, but sometimes is a necessary action for the greater good. (Not that a debate on the war hasn’t been addressed and all ideas on both sides exhausted, I just address Reeder.)
That was a rather arrogant and blind retort. I believe ** X~Slayer(ALE)** said this:
He who controls the country, controls the oil, and it will be up to the USA to make sure that he who controls Iraq is going to be Iraqi
Slayer did not say an American will rule Iraq and will pocket Iraqi oil sales for his (or her) own profit. The United States wants an Iraqi in power so to keep the new government in the hands of the Iraqi people. I already said, but will mention again with hope you read it this time: (not an exact quote) The United States will be internationally bound to keep the profits of Iraqi oil strictly within the limits of rebuilding Iraq, and to do otherwise would create an enormous international backlash.
IMHO, the strength of the UN will be in delivering and distributing humanitarian to an opressed Iraqi people, not establishing a new government or rebuilding the infrastructre.
Yes, I see the spelling errors.
If you think that whoever controls the oil doen’t enrich themselves at the cost of the Iraqi’s or that the US won’t decide the direction of the oil…you are mistaken.
What if the Iraqi’s decided that giving the contracts to deliver the oil to those that had it before was the simplest way to go. No new negotiations needed.
Could the US stand for that? Of course not. The US must be the deciding factor. Not the Iraqi’s.
Good god, man! For how many years are we going to be using “but 3000 people died” as justification for doing whatever the heck we want? Saddam didn’t have anything to do with September 11th. All those folks over there arn’t the same borg-like person. I swear in fifty years when I’m an old lady I’m gonna hear about the United States invading freaking Venezuela declaring that they have a perfect right to because of those poor 3000 people. :smack:
—Its not as if the UN actually gave any assistance towards helping the US topple Hussein. —
Geez. How quickly it’s gone from “we have to do this to make international law mean something” to “hey, hands off our spoils!”
I think US companies will benefit from developing Iraq, and already have from contracts given to put out the well fires. I also am sure that the US will control the route of the oil, but the underlying tone of this is that the US will gain ALL the profit, and at the expense of the Iraqi people.
Read what I said. I did not use 9/11 as justification for the war with Iraq. Reeder made a comment about civillian deaths in Iraq because of the current war, and I made note that Americans know what it means when non combatants are killed either in the crossfire, or as direct targets. It was simply to say that Iraqi civillian deaths by the hands of coalition forces are accidental, wheras America’s enemies purposely attack women and children.
Who is paying for the fires to be put out? Who is going to pay for the rebuilding? Is it going to be Iraq? Is it going to be the UN?
Guess again.
The US taxpayers are going to.
Bush’s cronies are going to get rich even without the oil profit figured in.
Something mush more easily seen after the war, and when we see how the administration handles rebuilding Iraq.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/index.htm
This is just the start. I have seen 910 billion dollars as the entire cost mentioned.