We're at war

lol mihai...

*NL*, i'll ask again...are we just going to TAKE the oil? what do you think is going to happen? saying "cash, reserves" is kinda obscure...i'm looking for what would actually happen. HOW are we going to gain those benefits...are we taking the oil and selling it...somehow acquiring the rights to it..?

i also found this that was rather interesting:

Iraq's oil "belongs to the Iraqi people" and the United States would hold Iraqi reserves in trust if it occupied Iraq after a war, Secretary of State Colin Powell said.

In an interview with regional newspaper reporters, the transcripts of which were released Wednesday by the State Department, Powell said Iraqi oil "will be held for and used for the people of Iraq."

"It will not be exploited for the United States' own purpose," he said. "We will follow religiously international law, which gives clear guidance with respect to the responsibilities of an occupying power, if it comes to that."

Both domestic and international critics of the Bush administration's confrontation with Iraq say oil -- not a professed desire that Iraq give up its weapons of mass destruction -- is the U.S. motivation. The Iraqi government has said the United States wants a war in order to assert control over Middle Eastern oil production.

Powell said the United States is "studying different models" of how Iraq's oil fields would be operated under a U.S.-led occupation, "but the one thing I can assure you of is that it will be held in trust for the Iraqi people, to benefit the Iraqi people. That is a legal obligation that the occupying power will have."

more here.

chris

btw, let me clarify that there is some relevance in spectra's post, but its just not that black and white as *NL* said. the simple fact is that yes, war is not good and the ways things unfolded is not a good thing. i also don't believe that there's a better solution. the UN, unfortunately, wasn't going to accomplish anything. the positions that respective countries took put us all in the position that we're in now, and in order to avoid far worse consequences in the future i agree that action was needed now.

chris

Lets not forget you can't expect to have a war without casualties, the decision of war isn't some carefree choice between "invade" and "abstain." Most likely the risks of not attacking outweigh the importance of the death of some innocents.

You're being WAY too optimistic over the benefit of oil.

The benefits to the U.S. will not even compare to the short term expense of fuel price hikes and stock martket woes, as a result to the war. Not to mention the cost of rolling the war machine out.

http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2003/03/17/daily46.html

You're doing fine on everything else, Fig... keep going!


btw: Peter Freundlich is a frikkin' MORON! To find his mindless dribble amusing is even more arrogant and ignorant than the bleeding hearts of France would have you believe Americans are! Oops, I resorted to name calling... sorry. Can a moderator please edit the above post for me?


I found an interesting article that mayh explain some of the reason why France is so 'passifistic', and "oooohh, make love, not war, oui, oui!". Unfortunately it's not an online article--it's in print by a NY Times columnist, William Safire. It ties links with a major French exporter to supplying chemical, a transparent liquid rubber called hydroxy terminated polybutadiene (HTPB), necessary for missles with mass destruction warheads capability (a much more sophisticated propellant than is required for Al-Samoud 2's) from China to Iraq through Syria!!!! All with the knowledge of France's intelligence community (however small that is). I'll see if I can find a copy online. Is THAT why France doesn't want us in Iraq? Trying to cover their own arses?

Nah... let's focus our attention on rhetoric like, "NO WAR FOR OIL", and other frikkin' dribble like that. Let's continue the 12 years of "diplomacy" for another 12 years! Frankly I don't think there'd be a world if Saddam was allowed to continue another 12 years.

My God do I see some (for lack of a better word) ignorant people making comments.

If you want to spout off, spout off but get some freaking facts to back you up. Disagreements and Great Debate in a forum is great and I love it. But, it makes me want to be sick when I see people have NO idea what they are talking about trying to make some absurd point...

So if you are going to play politics, do some reading. That is all I ask. Don't just spout off and look like an idiot.

A few facts:
- Already Sadam has "USED" weapons he said he did not have.
- We are liberating a nation of people who have been tortured and 100's of thousands killed
- We and a few other great nations are doing this because the UN is nothing more than joke. And now it has been proven that they are.
- We have the BEST weapons in the world. The weapons are developed to prevent hitting "non-targets". To try and keep civilian casualties to a minimum.
- Getting rid of Sadam WILL help ease tensions in the Middle East. Who cares who hates the U.S. They almost all do anyway. The overall big picture will be much more peaceful with out Sadam. If you say I am wrong about that then prove me wrong. But don't waste your time....
- The French: you will end up finding out they did indeed do illegal actions with IRAQ. Why do you think they are so against the war and screwed any chance of a UN resolution. They promised to Veto it no matter what it was. Stay tuned on this topic. The truth will come out...

And for me personally... I think they are a bunch of pussies who we never should have helped out in the past.

- Anybody who bitches about how they hate this country has that right. In Iraq you would be shot or have your tongue cut out. And it is my right to think that if you bitch about this country you should pack your bags and get the hell out. But that is just my right to think that way. Of course in a free society like this that would never happen.

- And last but not least you will find that there is proof connecting Iraq and 9-11. For that ONE reason alone I think they should take care of business. Yes, sometimes the only way for Peace is War...

God Bless all the soldiers over there now fighting...

A few facts:
- Already Sadam has "USED" weapons he said he did not have.

Like I said, Sadam is a ****ing asshole and has to go. All I'm
saying is that I think this isn't the right way.

- We are liberating a nation of people who have been tortured and 100's of thousands killed

Again, like I said... There has to change something. Everybody
agrees with that, even the French. The way to stop people from
being killed just isn't killing some more, I don't think thats hard
to understand? And ofcourse I know this war isn't about killing
Iraqi people, nonetheless... peaceful solutions should always been used.

- We and a few other great nations are doing this because the UN is nothing more than joke. And now it has been proven that they are.

This isn't a way of proving they are, this is just not listening to
them and do what you wanna do. The UN can't help that. And
since all of us guys know our politics this good, shouldn't there
been listened to us? That's what democracy is about. I don't
know if you noticed this, but there have been millions and
millions of people, all around the world, protesting against this
war. And... please don't say you will prove the UN is a joke
because you will finally solve this crisis, nothing has been solved
yet... And, like any business, people should look at the
consequences rather than the short therm results.

- We have the BEST weapons in the world. The weapons are developed to prevent hitting "non-targets". To try and keep civilian casualties to a minimum.

I'm not all that scared that alied forces will kill alot of civilians, i'm
more scared of the **** sadam and his little helpers will throw at
the civilians. But... these so called 'smart bombs' have hit
hospitals, tv stations (civilian targets) in previous bombing
operations.

- The French: you will end up finding out they did indeed do illegal actions with IRAQ. Why do you think they are so against the war and screwed any chance of a UN resolution. They promised to Veto it no matter what it was. Stay tuned on this topic. The truth will come out...

oh, let's bomb them too. They have relations with Iraq, just like Iraq is connected to 9-11. May I remind you that America provided Iraq with weapons?





And about the rebuilding stuff, I'm not too sure about that.
Bush promised it, what's Bush's promise worth anyway, after the Afghan war he promised to put ALOT of money in rebuilding it too,
Bush's 2003 budget request did not include one red cent in aid to Afghanistan. However, after that... the congress quickly arranged 300 million dollar. Which still is a laughable amount of money, and in NO way will cover the expenses of rebuilding the country.

Thanks NL ;)
I appreciate your input. But answer me this please. If you are

"more scared of the **** sadam and his little helpers will throw at the civilians."

then have you not proved the point that he had to be removed. And since the UN failed to act in a way that was going to do that we had to do it on our own.

Yes... I totally agree with you that he has to go. I just don't agree with war, because of the casualties and because of the fact that i'm not sure if it all will be better afterwards.

And the UN did fail, yes. But you haven't succeeded yet either.

And... perhaps another interesing view. After the first gulf war, Iraq was poor. No medicins, no food, no money... no nothing.
The people there aren't as educated as they could have been, I think thats why Sadam has this much people that support him. They don't have a CLUE on whats going on. Wouldn't it be better to support them in a different way, and show them there are other ways to rule a country then by torturing and killing people like Sadam does?

*NL*: Unfortunately your arguments are like every other person I had this 'discussion' with who is against war. You have no viable alternative. You have NO way of dealing with the atrocities of Saddam, because you are not willing offer any consequences for his action.

We did not destroy Afghanistan. Russia did. They had bombed the **** out of that country long before we got there. We are attempting to provide aid and fix things that we did not do. The only targets we hit were military installations which were basically military installations cut into caves. You're wrong on this one too, friend.