Guest

The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Tue Mar 25, 2003 6:01 pm

Guys,

I suspect a few people would assume I would be rather left wing on this issue which is NOT THE CASE. Cynical yes, left wing NO.

This is all about securing the Middle East and making sure our oil supplies are not compromised by a recalcitrant Iraqi regime or others.

This war was decided and acted upon MONTHS AND MONTHS ago by our Allied leaders.

Our leaders were hoping to cash in on the *war on terror* and the Bali incident as public favour rather than the fervour that is happening in no US allied countries.

The A-Typical war protester has good intentions but would be the first to bitch and moan to the government if a nasty ass Iraq decided to disrupt oil supplies that all our countries economies rely on if they were forced to pay $4.00 a litre for fuel.

The failing American and UK economies will get a boost with goverment aided re-construction projects of Iraq that should bring their economies on-line.

The share market hates indecision and a direct strike should boost it substantially generating liquidity and certainty.

The reason the French, Russian and Germans were against a war was because they will miss out on the bounty on rebuilding and running Iraq.

It brings to the bone the terrorists who need no reason to attack, to do so and expose themselves for us to iliminate these bozo's.

Finally, the Iraqui people who no-one has given two hoots about will be democratically free finally from a nasty despot.

What is wrong with this? Multinational companies behave badder than the Allied forces in poor countries every day?

We want capitalism in our western countries and why should we be afraid?

No one wants to see our servicemen and women dead or tortured, but isn't this the reason we have armed forces?

If anyone wants to scream about it then think of your sovreignity of your own countries and the economic safety that the Allied forces are trying to uphold, as tasteless as it is.

mb
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Tue Mar 25, 2003 6:06 pm

The reason the French, Russian and Germans were against a war was because they will miss out on the bounty on rebuilding and running Iraq.

This argument makes no sense. If that was true, it was easy to join the "party" just to benefit from that reconstruction, and then these countries would have been pro-war.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Tue Mar 25, 2003 6:23 pm

Sebolino, wake up. The French and Russians (and others) wanted to have a quasi-monopoly position, without having to worry about competition from English or American companies. They have no wish to see Saddam go, sanctions or not, because they know Saddam cannot and will not give business to Americans or British companies. They don't care if he attacks someone again.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Tue Mar 25, 2003 6:29 pm

Cfalk, wake up.

Iraq is much closer from Europe than it is from the USA. It's much easier for Bush to destabilize this region by a war than it would be for the Europeans, he won't face the immediate consequences, and as we all see they were not long to come: Turkey is messing all up, and it was expectable.
Bush will face terrorism though.

Bush wanted a total monopoly position on Iraq oil, and he will nearly have it (he will have to share with UK).
USA were already buying 60 % of Iraq's oil. Now they will produce 100%.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Tue Mar 25, 2003 6:36 pm

So you still buy this oil arguement? Do you really believe that the US and UK will pay something other than world market price for Iraqi oil 5 or 10 years from now? I don't.

Face it, France and Russia were only interested in making money. The "Whores of Babylon" indeed!

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3495
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Tue Mar 25, 2003 6:52 pm

You didn't read my posts did you ?

It was easier to enter into this war and to take part on that big cake of reconstruction. It would have been much more profitable than to have a simple agreement to exploit Iraq's oil and pay it.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Tue Mar 25, 2003 7:09 pm

It was easier to enter into this war and to take part on that big cake of reconstruction. It would have been much more profitable than to have a simple agreement to exploit Iraq's oil and pay it.

Hmm... Your math skills seem to be highly suspect. Can you reveal how you get to this conclusion? Please use numbers. Assume that this whole thing will cost $100 billion or more in direct costs, plus a lit of intangible costs. What kind of profits do you see?

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
9V-SVE
Posts: 1953
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 7:51 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Tue Mar 25, 2003 7:55 pm

Long-term profits...?
 
Guest

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Tue Mar 25, 2003 7:58 pm

Face it, France and Russia were only interested in making money. The "Whores of Babylon" indeed!

and that's different from Americas "liberation of Iraq by giving Americans all the contracts & oil" attitude? 2 contracts before the war is even over, both to big american "suck up" companies .. all the proof we need is there.





ADG
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Tue Mar 25, 2003 9:00 pm

Do you really believe that the US and UK will pay something other than world market price for Iraqi oil 5 or 10 years from now? I don't.

Jesus, Charles...you backed up the oil argument yourself by using the phrase "world market price".

By controlling Iraq's reserves, the United States can all but set world market price for 20 years.

Assume that this whole thing will cost $100 billion or more in direct costs, plus a lit of intangible costs.

Yesterday the President asked Congress for 80 billion. That'll pay they price tag. For 30 days. Beyond that, the White House is still recklessly using the "who knows" method of budgeting.

If you think we're flirting with deficit disaster simply for principle and to take out a few chemical weapon artillery shells, you're nuts.

It's about oil.
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Tue Mar 25, 2003 9:14 pm

This is all about securing the Middle East and making sure our oil supplies are not compromised by a recalcitrant Iraqi regime or others.

And, uh, what is the problem with that?  Smile

The reason the French, Russian and Germans were against a war was because they will miss out on the bounty on rebuilding and running Iraq.

Actually, that's part of it Mx5_boy. The other part was that they had a lot of $$ tied up in contracts signed with Saddam Hussein that will now be null and void, most likely, with the soon-to-be new government there. It's a double whammy.

I had thought, up till recently, that Russia would be allowed to participate in the reconstruction, as well as Germany, and the UN. But if these assertions about GPS jammers are true, and if Putin doesn't squash that one, they'll be left in cold just as I'm sure France willl be.

Yesterday the President asked Congress for 80 billion. That'll pay they price tag. For 30 days. Beyond that, the White House is still recklessly using the "who knows" method of budgeting.

If you think we're flirting with deficit disaster simply for principle and to take out a few chemical weapon artillery shells, you're nuts.


Agree with both those points, Heavymetal. The idiotic stance of the President and the GOP to "pay" for this war by piling up more deficits was a political move, meant to appease the maniacle "no-new-taxes" nuts of the far right. Yet it will further damage the economy, which, in the long run, could seal Bush's fate if it doesn't improve.

As for the second question, I don't have any illusions like the French that they were in this ONLY out of love and concern for the Iraqi people. There are ALWAYS lots of other motives involved.

It's about oil

Again, Heavymetal, if it were about oil, we'd have taken the whole region intact in 1991. It's partly about oil-the fact tht oil prices haven't skyrocketed is that Iraq wasn't able to destroy most of the wells there. So in that context, it is about oil.
 
Staffan
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:21 am

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Tue Mar 25, 2003 11:58 pm

Is it true that only american companies are going to get contracts in Iraq during the rebuilding?

 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:02 am

Staffan,

If a certain country will be paying for reconstruction work, that money should morally be spent on contracts to either local Iraqi companies (if the skills and equipment are available locally), or to companies from the country who is paying for the reconstruction. Why should French companies benefit from British or US-taxpayer-funded contracts to benefit Iraqis?

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Staffan
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:21 am

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:14 am

I assumed that Iraqi money will pay for the reconstruction since they do have a lot of money and oil resources in the country, isn't that correct?

Reason I asked, was because I read that there are 8 major contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, and that all these are reserved for american companies, and 3 of them have allready been given to US companies. First one was apparently given already a month ago...

Anyway, I found it strange that nothing seems to be going to be given to other countries actively participating in this.

Staffan
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:21 am

Again, Heavymetal, if it were about oil, we'd have taken the whole region intact in 1991

That argument doesn't hold weight, Alpha. We took what we needed in 1991....the oil soaked sliver known as Kuwait. We needed no more for the immeadiate future.

In fact, I'll toss conservatives here a juicy morsel...and see if they bite. Part of the reason we enjoyed the good times of the 90s under Clinton was the predictability and (relative) stability of the world oil markets and the low price of a gallon of gas......an economic state achieved by the debt and gratitude of a grateful Kuwait, liberated by King George I.

Of course, if you believe that....and I do.....you can't have your cake and eat it to. The liberation of Kuwait promised us ten years(or longer) of oil economy equillibrium. The occupation of Iraq could theoretically promise us 50 years(or longer) of that equillibrium. That's a good thing, right? One less worry. I'm not sure I disagree.

Except it proves one thing.

It's about oil.
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:23 am

By the way, Alpha....that 74 billion and change the President asked for was to run the war for thirty days. Then again, look where the money's going:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21766-2003Mar24.html
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:25 am

Steffan,

Bush has already requested $8 billion from Congress for direct aid for the reconstruction of Iraq. If I were a U.S. taxpayer, I'd be pretty pissed if that money landed in a country other than Iraq or the U.S., as I said before. I'm sure that British unilateral aid will be under the same terms.

If the UN gets involved, I would expect that the distribution of contracts should reflect roughly the partition of sourcing of the reconstruction funds (although I expect that there will be some variations).

Once Iraq starts getting back on its feet, of course they will be free to hand out contracts to whoever it wishes, using the proceeds from oil. The U.S. government has announced that they will request that the U.N. drop all non-weapons related sanctions immediately following the conflict.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:29 am

If I were a U.S. taxpayer, I'd be pretty pissed if that money landed in a country other than Iraq or the U.S.

Charles...

Click on the above link. And see why I'm pissed.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:34 am

Heavymetal,

I agree that the deficit spending is getting a little out of hand. Deficit spending is a good thing in a recession, but this is getting ridiculous.

On the other hand, WWII was also funded by deficit spending.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 12:44 am

The $75 Billion also includes the reconstruction and humanitarian aid. Just wanted to point that out.

There may be some expensive real estate available to sell in Iraq. Of course they will be 'fixer-uppers'.
"Shaddap you!"
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:14 am

Cha-ching.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/index.htm

Maybe Red Adair should run for Vice President.

 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:21 am

So.........if a country signs an exclusive agreement with anyone not to the US's satisfaction, they can expect a pre-emptive attack in return? Gosh - wonder what that'll do to Airbus sales!!!  Smile  Smile  Smile

The US are not fighting for the oil - they're fighting for the freedom to buy it, almost as important as the oil itself. (This negates Alpha's argument of 'if we wanted it, we'd take it all'). If Saudi Arabia becomes hostile (Islamic Revolution anyone?) they wouldn't sell oil to the US. So another supply has to come from somewhere.

Personally, it doesn't bother me. We need these resources. However, what pisses me off is that the US is cloaking it up as a crusade of liberation when it's not. If they are so worried about 'freedom', why do they continue to support Saudi, a totalitarian, autocratic, quasi-police state? (Small word, three letters).
 
JetService
Posts: 4611
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2000 1:12 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:34 am

Eg777er, quiz question: Where does the US get most of its oil? No cheating.
"Shaddap you!"
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 2:09 am

This is not about oil. If the war costs a $100 billion + and then Iraq must be rebuilt using its- you guessed it- oil. Any expenses on top of that will likely come out of the US treasury. That really does not make for good business for the US of A. Potential savings in energy costs will be lost through increased defense and other costs. The war for oil argument makes no economic sense whatsoever.

HM,

I do not buy your theory you posted in reply 14. Sure Cheney and rest had a grudge against Iraq for a while. But it does not follow that this why we are at war now. If we had put oil uber alles, we could have acted like France and dealt with Saddam while inventing reasons about what a nice guy he actually is along the way.

9/11 blew open the door on what consititues potential threats to national security. Like I have said before. on 9/10/01 4 overnighted Boeings were not considered an imminent threat to our security nor were 19 Arab men traveling on 4 separate flights.

After 9/11, tons and tons of bio and chem weapons held by this particular dictator look a helluva a lot more dangerous than they did the day before. Particularly since he starved his country to hang onto them. Although I do not believe that Saddam is linked to al-Qaeda, I think he may support other malcontents who hate us. As I posted elsewhere, no one knew that East
Germany was supporting the IRA, Carlos the Jackal, and other unsavory characters until after the regime fell. I suspect we will find that Saddam is a patron to a lot of bad groups.


 
eg777er
Posts: 1782
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 11:11 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 2:41 am

Um......I believe it's Canada, with 667m barrels of crude/products in 2001. Second is Saudi Arabia with 606m barrels of crude/products. The US gets 25% of all its crude/products from the Persian Gulf. I know what you're suggesting, but you're wrong.

Over the next 30 years the only places in the world that will have oil will be Iraq, Saudi, the UAE and Kuwait. That's why Iraq needs to be invested in now, so by 2060 it will be able to fuel the US economy that is still not interested in conserving energy......


(Sorry, had to cheat a little for the numbers. From the US DoE website).
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 2:47 am

Over the next 30 years the only places in the world that will have oil will be Iraq, Saudi, the UAE and Kuwait.

Not true. If you consider Canada's so-called "oil sands" in Alberta, Canada's reserves shoot above Saudi Arabia.....much of the oil sands though (effectively, heavily diluted oil) is very expensive to extract & process.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Guest

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:11 am

Alpha Says:

"""And, uh, what is the problem with that?"""

I haven't a problem with the war per se', except with our politicians who are treating us with contempt by outright lying about the true reasons behind the war!

This is what is upsetting many people.

mb
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:25 pm

Read the following article. This war is NOT about oil.

Do the math: It's not about oil

William Watson
National Post

Wednesday, January 29, 2003

Living in France for the year, I read a lot about how the Second Iraq War is about oil. Maybe for the French it's about oil, but if you're George W. Bush and have to make the call, I suspect it's about a mountain of smouldering rubble you found yourself standing atop on Sept. 14, 2001. When you take a hit to the gut like that you respond by working through your list of known enemies. Last year it was Osama bin Laden, this year Saddam Hussein. And I'll bet that's not the end of the list.

Suppose, I tell my French friends, Jacques Chirac had found himself standing atop the ruins of the Eiffel Tower, or the Arc de Triomphe or the National Assembly, or maybe, during a quick bus tour, all three, since Charles de Gaulle is a busy airport and puts up more than enough planes in an hour to do Sept. 11-like damage. And suppose, to get the body count up, the evil ones had also taken out a crowded department store, maybe Les Galeries Lafayette. Would it still be about oil then?

If a more reasoned argument is required, I cite a recent study on the likely costs of the war by William Nordhaus, a professor of economics at Yale, which should be a good enough pedigree to impress even French intellectuals. Like the French, Nordhaus is skeptical about the war: He thinks it could be much more difficult and costly -- up to almost US$2-trillion -- than the usual estimates of US$100- to $150-million suggest.

But he's also a good economist and he tries to take into account the effects of different possible outcomes in the world oil market. His nightmare scenario, calling on the precedents of OPEC I and OPEC II, is that if the war goes badly and the Middle East falls apart, oil prices will treble this year and then return to normal levels at the historically average rate of 20% a year. If that happens, his model says it would cost the U.S. economy US$778-billion over the next decade, which is about 7.5% of this year's GDP.

Unfortunately, if that seems excessively gloomy, Nordhaus's rosy scenario isn't correspondingly bright. Even if the United States wins a quick war, he doesn't see US$10 oil in the future. It's true that Iraq has immense reserves: 112 billion barrels proved, enough to supply the United States for 100 years, and maybe twice that still to be found since exploration has lagged under Saddam's rule.

On the other hand, even if the United States ran Iraq as a protectorate, which isn't likely, oil prices probably wouldn't collapse. Given the damage Saddam has done, it would take some time to get output up from its current 2.5 million barrels a day to the 3.5 mbd Iraq produced before he came along. (Saddam has overseen a 90% drop in per capita Iraqi income in his disastrous 23-year rule. Not even Canadian Liberals could expect to survive economic statistics that bad.)

Beyond that, do you then produce enough to bust up OPEC, and cripple other oil producers, like Russia? And who decides Iraqi oil production? In what Nordhaus suggests were sweetheart deals to win support in the Security Council, Saddam has sold development concessions to both France and Russia. (Maybe for some people it really is about oil.) Does the United States simply override those?

In Nordhaus's view, the most likely outcome is that Iraq eventually settles in at 3.5 mbd, which does increase world supplies but only by enough to reduce prices by 92 US cents a barrel -- hardly worth fighting even a small war over.

Another myth that Nordhaus's study busts is the hoary Marxist creed that capitalist economies conduct wars because war is good for profits. In fact, wars generally have mixed economic effects. They're bad for consumer confidence, the stock market and private investment. But they're great for government spending. Get into a long-lasting war and you can crank up government outlays on tanks, planes and munitions and provide lots of Keynesian stimulus, if you like that sort of thing. The Second World War got the United States back to full employment, while Vietnam provided so much extra stimulus it overheated the go-go 1960s economy.

That may have been true in the past, Nordhaus argues, but the wars the United States has been fighting lately just don't eat up a lot of matériel. During the Gulf War, the U.S. defence budget rose only 0.3% of GDP, barely enough to be noticed.

Nordhaus's bottom line is that a short war with a happy political outcome would have almost no effect on the U.S. economy, while the nightmare scenario causes an economic hit of US$1.2-trillion over 10 years -- the direct hit from higher oil prices described above, which is spread over the decade, and a macroeconomic sag induced by the oil shock that amounts to US$391-million felt mainly in the first two years.

Conclusion: It's not about oil. It's not about profits. It's about Sept. 11, 2001.


I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
Guest

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 4:27 pm

So the fact that the people are frightened is justification?




ADG
 
Guest

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 5:03 pm

ADG,

You, myself, the Australian public and probably the rest of the Western World besides many of the yanks *know* what this war is about.

And it has nothing to do with 9/11 besides a sick exploitation by our politicians of our fears - for a war that is politically unsavoury.

There is absolutely NO LINK with Saddam and Iraq with the 9/11 or Bali terrorist attacks.

mb
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 5:30 pm

No, ADG. It concerns Bush's promise days after Sept.11th that he would not allow such an event to ever happen again. Prevention, not punishment. And as the best defense is a good offence, that means preemption. It means knocking out threats before they reach criticality.

Punishment of a crime is (partially) meant to be a deterrent against doing such actions. But when your enemies are willing to die thinking that they will be martyred and honored guests in Heaven, the threat of punishment after the fact is worthless. What would Mohammed Atta's reaction be if, on Sept. 10th, he were warned, "If you do this, we will kill or imprison you." I don't think he would have been impressed.

Preemption is intended as a deterrent against even THINKING about such attacks like 9/11.

It's a harsh doctrine, and will certainly cause a lot of unease around the world because it changes the rules. But Bush said that after 9/11. The U.S. didn't throw away the rules first. The terrorists and those who support them did. And so did the tinpot dictators around the world.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Guest

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 5:45 pm

Cfalk,

I have never read such bollocks in my life. It's all about money and economies.

The sad fact is the USA is hated now across the planet and our allied pollies look like fools for following a rather jaded mantra. It's OK for Americans to follow the rantings of Bush's media junket but the rest of us don't buy it.

I am for the war in a way as it secures many things for western nations but lying to the public and making pathetic overtones and exploiting publics opinions is rather dull.

Your allies (Australian) children are not even as duped as many US citizens and burned American flags and Bush effigys in Sydney today - and it wasn't a small crowd either.

mb
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 5:56 pm

I have never read such bollocks in my life. It's all about money and economies.

Something tells me that you did not read, or at least did not understand, Watson's article. Please support your arguments, don't just spout off dogma.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Guest

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 6:01 pm

Cfalk,

No dogma mate. Look at what the rest of world thinks?

Some of you guys are so brainscrubbed by the Bush administration.

So be it.

mb
 
Krushny
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2000 4:22 am

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 6:32 pm

Conclusion: It's not about oil. It's not about profits. It's about Sept. 11, 2001 .

It's NOT about Sept.11 2001, no involvement of Iraqi Govt has been proven and there is no way this campaign prevents similar terror attacks in the future. Then what the hell is it about??

I do not believe that the American Govt is a bunch of irrational people, so someone please cough up the truth asap.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 6:34 pm

It's NOT about Sept.11 2001, no involvement of Iraqi Govt has been proven and there is no way this campaign prevents similar terror attacks in the future. Then what the hell is it about??

You did not understand the meaning of the article. Iraq's direct or indirect involvement in 9/11 is not an issue.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Krushny
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2000 4:22 am

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 6:57 pm

This article tries to dismount the "It's all about oil theory". But what I do not understand, and is not even explained, is the giant leap from the 9/11 rubble to the Iraq campaign, which will not punish any responsible nor prevent any future 9/11 .
9/11 is a lame excuse for this war. The reasons are others.
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:06 pm

9/11 was the trigger, but not the cause.

As a result of 9/11, The U.S. has decided that it will no longer tolerate loose canons in the world - i.e. organizations that use terror or who support terrorism for whatever reason, and especially those which would have sympathetic views towards terrorists and which have access to WMDs, and who may be tempted to hand some over. Afghanistan was the first, Iraq was #2.

Is that a broad definition? Yes, Will there be other countries targeted after Iraq? Certainly - there are a number of countries which fit the description. Will they always be targetted militarilly? No - some countries will require much more subtle strategies, such as Saudi Arabia. Does this mean a sort of Pax Americana in the works? Probably, yes.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Schoenorama
Posts: 2305
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 5:15 am

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Thu Mar 27, 2003 1:39 am


"As a result of 9/11, The U.S. has decided that it will no longer tolerate loose canons in the world - i.e. organizations that use terror or who support terrorism for whatever reason,..."

...organizations the US wasn't affraid of of supporting not too long ago!

"and especially those which would have sympathetic views towards terrorists and which have access to WMDs"

For Christ's sake, since 9/11 even a B767 is a WMD. Until today, there is still no link between Al Qa'ida and Iraq and its regime. Also, US provided documents to the IAEA regarding Iraq trying to buy nuclear material were FAKE. In other words, the US at that time was apparently so interested in making a case for a war on Iraq, that it was willing to present forged documents. It sure makes me wonder about the US's real intentions for starting this war on Iraq.

"Afghanistan was the first..."

And its so nice to see that at last Afghanistan is a very stable and democratic country, and all the fighting amongst the Warlords has completely stopped and the Taliban regime has been completely whiped out and the US is already spending billions of $ to help rebuild the country. Not!

"Will there be other countries targeted after Iraq? Certainly - there are a number of countries which fit the description."

The US has WMD's, the US has supported terrorist organizations in the past (of these, there are proven facts), the US does not comply with international law, should I go on?

Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4442
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Thu Mar 27, 2003 1:55 am

Does this mean a sort of Pax Americana in the works? Probably, yes.

And what Pax, Charles, has ever lasted?









"It is a day when we honor all the men from the Sudbury area who gave their lives..in order to keep China British".
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Thu Mar 27, 2003 3:11 am

...organizations the US wasn't affraid of of supporting not too long ago!

You want perfection? Mistakes are made sometimes.

there is still no link between Al Qa'ida and Iraq and its regime.

So? It's irrelevant.

And its so nice to see that at last Afghanistan is a very stable and democratic country, and all the fighting amongst the Warlords has completely stopped and the Taliban regime has been completely whiped out and the US is already spending billions of $ to help rebuild the country. Not!

So you want perfection AND instant results too...

And what Pax, Charles, has ever lasted?

Nothing is forever. You can only reach for the foreseeable future.

"Changes aren't permanent, but Change is."
- Rush
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Guest

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:36 pm

Oh, the Bush administration actually has forgotten about Afghanistan...

Shame about that.

mb
 
Krushny
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2000 4:22 am

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:59 pm

Does this mean a sort of Pax Americana in the works? Probably, yes.

Charles, you got it... The terrorism USA suffered on 9/11 has opened an opportunity to install a PAX Americana in the world. This is a very plausible explanation of what is happening today in Iraq. Whether this Pax Americana can be executed properly, and will be benign to the rest of the world or not has yet to be seen.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:57 pm

Oh, the Bush administration actually has forgotten about Afghanistan...

Shame about that.


The Americans liberated Afghanistan. Shame on the rest of the world for leaving this to the Americans.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
747-451
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2000 5:50 am

RE: The War On Iraq - *MONEY*.

Fri Mar 28, 2003 1:59 am

Does this mean a sort of Pax Americana in the works?

as opposed to what? a Pax Taliban, Pax Francias, Pax Alemaneia or perhaps a radical Islamicist sultanate consuming the entire world????  Insane or worse another pupet state created by and/or left twsinting in the wind by the UN? (Zimbabwe, Somalia etc etc...)
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

Yyz717

Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:29 am

Yyz717: The Americans liberated Afghanistan. Shame on the rest of the world for leaving this to the Americans.

I just couldn´t say it better than this:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/liberation.html

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests