Why doesn't the US want the UN to run post war Iraq?

[Pathros_1983]

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/28/news/companies/Halliburton/index.htm

That’s the site abotu Halliburton dropping out of the running.

Right. The UN is a bunch of squabbling diplomats. They have about as much chance of rebuilding Iraq properly as I do of becoming Superman.

I agree, but I said humanitarian relief, not the rebuilding of Iraq.

[kniz]

*originally posted be *
What is apparent is that you chose to make this thread a vehicle for your prejudices and mudslinging at organisations you don’t like.

Yeah, like your posts have been entirely objective. :rolleyes:

[kniz]

[ul]Pardon, the above quote was "originally posted be OliverH[/ul]

[Reeder]

*Originally posted by Bob Cos *
**snip…
[ul][li]Take control of Iraq’s oil.[/li][li]Allow the U.S. to divert profits from the sale of the seized Iraqi oil into our own coffers.[/li][li]Bush’s pals can also fill their pockets with the profits from ancillary infrastructure-building projects. (Bonus!)[/ul]All the rest of the administration’s rhetoric is a smoke screen.[/li]snip… **

That’s about it in a nutshell.

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by Reeder *
**That’s about it in a nutshell. **

Wow, then you’re right. I never considered that before. Bush and his henchmen are evil geniuses.

And stupid evil geniuses, too, since a much easier way to gain access to Iraqi oil, without the bazillions of dollars it will cost the U.S. via the war route, would have been the French method. Just get in bed with the Iraqis, stop making noise about any evil, do your very best to sabotoge any effort at containment. We could have lobbied the U.N. to remove sanctions and eliminate any restrictions on the flow of oil. Think the Iraqis wouldn’t have been grateful? Think this might have greased the skids toward some U.S. profits? Why, oh why, didn’t someone think of this?

Since, as you’ve pointed out, the Bush administration really has no moral aversion to the Iraqi government (just a smoke screen–it’s all about oil), I am baffled why this didn’t occur to them. Oh well, probably just the distracting glow of their evilness.

Anyway, I’m with you now, brother.

NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!
NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!
NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!
SOMEBODY CALL BATMAN TO FOIL THIS EVIL PLOT!!

[Pathros_1983]

Hmm… I really could sharpen my own rhetoric skills. Good call, ** Bob cos.**

[Azael]

Bob Cos you are screaming into the hurricaine… you brave, brave man. I think you’ll find that the pet conspiracy theories of the lunatic left are not open to debate.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I can’t see the Americans doing a worse job than, oooh, let’s say… Saddam Hussein?

[davidm]

*Originally posted by Hermann Cheruscan *
**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. **

You make it sound like some kind of game where the winner gets the spoils. Of course the hen deserves the bread but we’re not talking about baking bread. This is supposed to be about making the world a safer and more stable place. That is the criteria that should be used to determine the future of Iraq. The question should be: “Which plan would be most likely to increase safety and stability?” and not: “Who did the most and therefore deserves to have their way?” If you believe that the US would do a better job then the UN than argue that, but this isn’t about who deserves the prize.

[Stratocaster]

*Originally posted by Azael *
**Bob Cos you are screaming into the hurricaine… you brave, brave man. I think you’ll find that the pet conspiracy theories of the lunatic left are not open to debate. **

I know, I know…I just can’t resist whenever I hear the “it’s all about oil” nonsense.

[Maximum_C]

*Originally posted by davidm *
**You make it sound like some kind of game where the winner gets the spoils. Of course the hen deserves the bread but we’re not talking about baking bread. This is supposed to be about making the world a safer and more stable place. That is the criteria that should be used to determine the future of Iraq. The question should be: “Which plan would be most likely to increase safety and stability?” and not: “Who did the most and therefore deserves to have their way?” If you believe that the US would do a better job then the UN than argue that, but this isn’t about who deserves the prize. **

Exactly. That previous moron was basically saying that the resources of a country morally belong to whoever takes the effort to conquer them. Those other silly countries that didn’t take the oil by force clearly don’t deserve it.

-C

[istara]

davidm - it’s pity people like you are unlikely to be the ones making decisions after the war. Your post is spot on.

[davidm]

istara and Maximum C,
Thank you. I was just stating what seems to me to be common sense. People seem to be arguing about the wrong thing. It’s not about who is deserves the spoils, it’s about what will achieve the best result.