Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 10Bears on September 15, 2002, 12:15:44 AM
-
Yeah Kieran and Toad... Ole 10Bears is right sometimes
A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.
Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia.
snip
WashingtonPost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18841-2002Sep14.html)
What was that you were sayin' bout me going on about it's all about the oil?... heh
-
I see. The Washington Post prints an article, and that verifies your claims...
...or not?
I could as easily argue the Bush administration is garnering support for the removal of SH by any means possible- meaning, hitting everyone in the pocket book. Yes, it could be a lucrative market, but not only for the U.S.
-
Oh BTW, if you care to relate the rest of that news, many UN countries are vying for that oil. It is one of the cards the U.S. is playing to get the support it needs. Of course you did go to all the trouble of making it sound like the U.S. alone is looking at that market...
-
Hopefully after this Iraq business is over we can have another go at Hugo Chavez....
-
One word.
Duh.
The middle east would be irrelavent if not for the oil. Any US created democracy would naturally be more friendly to us than the current regimes.
Some people will say that an attack on iraq has nothing to do with oil.
Others will say that the only reason we're considering it is the oil, and therefore we shouldn't.
The reality is, oil is good reason in and of itself. Most western countries are driven by oil, without it we would collapse. This is why OPEC and the oil conglomerates can screw the world so badly and get away with it.
-
Men of Honor was just on HBO... Good movie. The whole premise was about Honor. I’m still teared up about it.
Kieran if you don’t accept articles from the Wash post or NY Times who do you accept articles from the Wash Times? The post is pretty mainstream it’s not a fringe paper at all so what’s your argument?.. That other European countries are also vying for that loot? The card the U.S. is playing is blackmail. If you don’t support us the price of oil for you will skyrocket. Man it’s like we have a government run by a bunch of gangsters it really is.
I wish they didn’t have to lie to us saying Saddam is this or that or is developing WMD lying to Congress lying to the U.N. about the evidence. The real agenda is quite clear. Here we are a few weeks away from murdering tens of thousands of people --- for what.. for control of Iraq’s oil fields that’s what. That is so dishonorable that goes against everything we were taught to believe as Americans.
The reality is, oil is good reason in and of itself. Most western countries are driven by oil, without it we would collapse. This is why OPEC and the oil conglomerates can screw the world so badly and get away with it.
[/b]
That’s roadkill Innominate good reason in and of itself indeed. To kill.. no murder thousands of people and possibility American soldiers over a business deal? Western countries wouldn’t collapse there’s plenty of other places to acquire oil. There’s lots of other alternatives besides oil for energy sources they haven't even looked at. They would if our government wasn’t being run by BIG OIL. Don’t be ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
That’s roadkill Innominate good reason in and of itself indeed. To kill.. no murder thousands of people and possibility American soldiers over a business deal? Western countries wouldn’t collapse there’s plenty of other places to acquire oil. There’s lots of other alternatives besides oil for energy sources they haven't even looked at. They would if our government wasn’t being run by BIG OIL. Don’t be ridiculous.
What's new about this?
You don't really think we send troops around the world to save innocent lives do you? It's all about protecting american interests, not innocents. If it happens to save innocent lives, great, but thats not what it's about.
What alternatives to oil are there?
Wind and solar are too inefficient, and expensive to produce significant power. Hydroelectric is only available where the water supplies allow. Nuclear opens up a whole new can of worms, and is probably the only thing that will get an environmentalist more irate than anything petroleum based. Coal is a start, but still has many problems. There are various grain-based fuels, all of which are extremely expensive, more so than oil would likely get even in the worst crisis.
Seeing as I'm sure I missed a few, please add on promising oil replacements.
Note: Fuel cells are NOT an alternative to oil, they are an alternative to gasoline. The electricity to create the hydrogen still has to be produced somehow.
There is no cheap or easy solution to eliminating our dependance on oil. The oil companies would have little reason to stick to an outdated resource such as petroleum, if there was a clean, cheap alternative which they could monpolize. When we run out of oil, they're going to feel it more than you or me, it's in thier best interests to move on. The problem is, it's not easy to do.
-
No, 10bears, you don't get it (again).
One article doesn't prove you right on anything, especially when you only present the part that makes your argument sound right. This story is all over the news agencies- except, when THEY tell it, they talk about ALL the countries that are using the oil as bargaining chips for their support of the U.S. initiative. The way you paint it, the U.S. and the U.S. alone is out to get that oil.
The proper perspective is that the U.S. government is out to get SH by any means possible. Many countries are leveraging for oil rights. U.S. corporations are vying for their share.
Once again you seem to leave out critical parts of dialogue, so yeah, I am suspicious of ANYTHING you post- even from the Washington Post.
-
I'm suspicious of ANYTHING the Washington Post prints.
-
Oil is the part spoils of war we get when we liberate a country from a sadistical madman. It is not the reason we will go to war with Saddam again. Weapons of mass murder and destruction and 16 violated UN resolutions are the reasons we need to remove him. Had the UN and the Clinton administration done their DUTY in the 90's this problem, and likely the war on terror, would not be here on our shoulders now. How likely is it that Saddam will let the inspectors back in with 100% access to anything they need/want to look at? They never even got to do that the first time.
AND :D
Oil is the worlds fuel. It's what makes most stuff go, period. Not just cars and trucks and planes and ships. But virtually everything else you use in day to day life got it's start as crude oil. You got a replacement for it? You ready to go back to living life like it was in the mid 1800's? Ready for us to start drilling all over Texas and Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico to get more of our own? Ready to go to 100% nuclear power? Though even w/ nuklear we'd still need oil for all our other stuff. Why else would we want/need to be there? This time we're there to save US. Just a side bonus that we get to liberate a country and free up a large percentage of the worlds oil all in one stroke.
In other words using oil is an invalid tactic :p
-
10 Bears, it's pretty obvious that you don't understand my position on a possible war against Iraq at all.
10Bears:
What was that you were sayin' bout me going on about it's all about the oil?
[/b]
Yes indeed! What did I say?
Please snip and post what you think I said. Then please give me a synopsis of what you think my position is on war against Iraq.
I'll be happy to clear up any misconceptions and I think there must be several.
-
Originally posted by Udie
Oil is the part spoils of war we get when we liberate a country from a sadistical madman
Do the people of Iraq want to be "liberated".
Why would the oil default to the US. Shouldn't it go to the people of Iraq?
-
Well... if the U.S. really wanted the oil, we could buy it... simply lift the sanctions.
Iraq needs to sell it just as much as the west needs to buy it.
-
I wonder, if Bush and all his oil buddies were the owners and mass builders of non fossil fuel products instead, if he would be so determined to extract SH?
Cant blame Clinton there Udie, if George Sr. would of finished the job he started in 1990 things would be different. Many knew SH would be a PITA to everyone later on down the line. Im not a Clinton follower, in fact, the guy's an idiot.
Just remember hind sight is 20/20
-
if we buy the oil from saddam he will build more palaces and buy more weapons to terriorize his people and other countries...
if we remove saddam and buy oil from the iraq people, they will build schools, hospitals, provide clean water and food for the iraq people.
do the iraq people want freedom from saddam? ask the kurds in the north, ask the shiite moslems in the south of iraq.
"""murdering tens of thousands of people """"
who said we will "murder" tens of thousands????
44MAG
barbarian knight
-
Originally posted by john9001
want freedom from saddam? ask the kurds in the north, ask the shiite moslems in the south of iraq.
Those are some Iraqi people. I wondered if anyone had stats. Have they ever been obtained?
PS: I've changed my mind about the Iraq thing.
The way I see it the second Iraq broke the cease-fire treaty with the UN, every member that supported the cease-fire should have gone in and dismantaled the Iraqi government.
Why is Bush going to war? WMD? Oil? Approval rating? Finish Daddy's War? I don't imagine we'll ever know.
-
Thrawn, I'm inclined to believe it is a little of everything you mentioned and more we don't know. It's foolish to believe it is merely a conspiracy to get the oil.
-
Well here's a list of 35 questions Congressman Ron Paul would like answered..
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm
Perhaps some of you can take a stab at it
27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?
28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?
snip
-
10bears, do you think the the US should go to war with Iraq?
-
No..
Thrawn, I’m a Free Trader Capitalist so my views are a bit radical. I believe the U.S. and international community should lift sanctions on everybody. Cuba, N. Korea Libya, Iran, Iraq The whole kitten kabutual. It makes bad business sense.
I also believe war is a group think form of mental illness. To use war as the first option is well--- madness. And being an American, we have a Constitution that forbids war except in case of self defense. The framers didn’t mean a threat down the road they meant self defense as in the enemy is already approaching our shores. Also, we have three separate branches of government that form the foundations of Democracy. These are the checks and balances so that one branch does not usurp the other two. Congress is not merely “consulted” regarding war, they have a duty to either vote for a declaration or a vote to support the Executive branch otherwise what do you have?... It sure ain’t Democracy.
In the past we American’s have gone to war for noble purposes. We may die so others may walk free. This is the spin the government is trying to pass off to the masses in the case of Iraq. It’s simply not true as the Washington Post article points out and other articles I’ve read. The President intends to plunder another countries natural resources. He intends to use said natural resources as a blackmail bargaining chip to get other countries support. He doesn’t care in the least how many innocent civilians have to die in bombing raids or for that matter how many working class families have to loose their sons in house to house street to street combat.
That my friend is the most un-noble dishonorable, and un-American reasons of all.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
No..
Thrawn, I’m a Free Trader Capitalist
Who would have thunk it?
And being an American, we have a Constitution that forbids war except in case of self defense. The framers didn’t mean a threat down the road they meant self defense as in the enemy is already approaching our shores.
I did not know that. I take this to mean that you also don't believe that we should have gone to war against Iraq in 91, is this correct? Did your congress delcare war against Iraq before the Gulf War?
-
27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?
ANSW>why does 10bear think oil is bad? how much oil does hawaii produce? i want a oil embargo on hawaii,
28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals
ANSW>that is a gross generalization that will not stand the test of history
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?
ANSW>the "moral argument" is the people of Iraq deserve a better life than they have under saddam
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?
ANSW>just read the constitution again , only reference to "war" is in ARTICLE 1,Section 8, (powers of congress)line 11, it only says congress has powers to declare war, says nothing about 'self-defense"
44MAG
barbarian knight
-
27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?
What do the oil companies have to do with the discussion, besides your continued insistance they control the government? Of course they want the oil. That has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not Iraq poses a threat not only to the U.S., but U.S. allies (Israel), thereby upsetting the precarious peace that exists in the Middle East. As you say, war is bad for business.
28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?
That is a rhetorical question. I might ask you why it is those that possess none of the intelligence gathered by various agencies are quick to judge action is not necessary.
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?
Refer to the answer to question #27. If our allies are pulled into war, we are pulled into war. WWI started precisely this way.
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?
"Provide for the common welfare"? Aside from that, there are times to be reactive, and times to be proactive.
-
"why does 10bear think oil is bad? how much oil does hawaii produce? i want a oil embargo on hawaii, "
Are you a soldier? Do you think that American soldiers should die for cheaper gas?
"the "moral argument" is the people of Iraq deserve a better life than they have under saddam"
Who are you to speak for the people of Iraq? Do you have any stats on what the people of Iraq think of Saddam?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
[B"are you a soldier? Do you think that American soldiers should die for cheaper gas?
Who are you to speak for the people of Iraq? Do you have any stats on what the people of Iraq think of Saddam? [/B]
i think the photos of dead kurdish babies that saddam gassed speak for me and the people of Iraq, and yes i was in the U.S. Marines
44MAG
-
Originally posted by john9001
i think the photos of dead kurdish babies that saddam gassed speak for me and the people of Iraq,
No it doesn't. What if the majority of the people of Iraq don't give a flying fig about the kurds?
and yes i was in the U.S. Marines
That wasn't the question I asked.
-
i give you facts , you give me "what if's" this flame war is over , i hold the moral high ground
44MAG
-
John you being from Flora-Do'h doesn't put you in much of a position to put down other states :D No offense
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
No it doesn't. What if the majority of the people of Iraq don't give a flying fig about the kurds?
Then they're just as bad as thier ruler. In ww2, the germans didnt give "a flying fig" about the jews being exterminated, does that mean that it's not worth doing anything about it?
-
c'mon 10... aren't you going to tell me what I think about Iraq?
After all, you started this thread invoking my name.
Tell me what you've garnered about my view of war with Iraq from what I've posted on the subject. Please do throw in a few quotes to support your assumption.
Thx!
-
I didn't bother to ask him that, Toad. I've never come right out and stated my stance on it either, more accurately I have wondered aloud about his absolute stances.
Me, I don't like the idea of war, but if it is to be a "sooner or later" proposition, it may as well be sooner. And I have to say, I've heard from an eye witness about the altruistic Iraqui soldiers in Kuwait. I don't see any reason to wait until they have weapons that put them on a more even standing with us. All this assumes there is need to be worried about their weapons capability (and they sure did seem to be hiding something back in the '90s, didn't they?).
-
show of hands of people in the oil business? personally, not a friend of a friend. I deal with it everday, drilling from the midcontinent of the US. I work for ExxonMobil. Iraqi oil is used everyday. Oil is the life blood of the world, good or bad.
war for oil? so, wars have been fought for much less.
-
The best way to ensure the horrific murder of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilans is to protect them with Dutch UN peacekeepers.
-
Toad sorry did some flying and the Sopranos were on tonight. You mentioned a couple of months ago your stance was they should let the inspectors back in.. That the evidence should be presented to a world body. That the U.N. security council should make a new resolution. Congress should take a vote. I agree with that. Not CIA spooks painting possible targets but actual inspectors. That was one of the reasons Iraq had for ejecting them. Another reason they were pulled out by the U.N. if you recall was Clinton’s Desert Fox operation back in ’98 was about to start.
I watched a clip earlier of a Clinton speech in ’98. He takes as much of a hard line as Bush. I’m not happy with any of this gun boat diplomacy. This new doctrine of Japanese style pre emptive strikes is just plain wrong. All the high flautuan rhetoric and propaganda in the world ain’t going to change my opinion that this is what it looks like.. The looting of a sovereign country. Our boys might die so another rich man can get richer. it’s dishonest, it’s immoral, and it’s un American.
What do these knuckleheads want? They want us to move our base out of Saudi Arabia, I say fine.. fine move it over to Gutter.. or how ever that’s spelled, they’ve already got that mostly finished anyway. They want us to spend a little less on Israel... I say that’s fine too. Israel is a big boy now they can take care of themselves they don’t need to be on welfare. Sanctions? lift em’ all who need them. There’s plenty of loopholes anyway. Ask Dnil how many millions worth of business we do with Iraq anyway.
Solutions?.. stop trying to impose our culture on the world all the time. You don’t need to pipe in the TEN channel on satellite to these conservative Muslim countries. You don’t need to build McDonalds everywhere. Mind your own business and take care of business.. I bet you pigs to polecats the terrorism would-- if not stop, slow down quite a bit.
Kieran I never see you in the arena anymore so I checked the score page.. You haven't been flying since May 2001!! You need to reactivate your account bro I can't imagine not flying 16 months.
-
What the hell is Gutter? The country's name is Quatar and is prounounced with a Q.
This proves you know knothing about the reagion and that you watch, and blindly reapeat like monkey, too many hours of uninformed US news shows. :D
-
heheheh Grun..
Hey Grunherz, your a young fella, Why don't you sign up for the U.S. Army right now. They need you... why a fine strappin collage boy like yourself.. heh-heh doesn't that sound like a good idea?.. You even know how to spell gutter. Yeah.. you head on over to the recruitment office right first thing in the morning eh. Let us know how it goes.
-
I don't get why we westerner are about to spank Iraq and leaving the piece of toejam who have financed the 9/11 still in command in Saoudia ?
-
"Hey Grunherz, your a young fella, Why don't you sign up for the U.S. Army right now. "
Nah I'm a pacifist at heart. Not to mention somebody's gotta watch over daddy's oil fields. :D
-
Haven't had the time to fly for months. I had been dolomyte for some time, but even that account is long dead. No, I drop in for the daily news and check out the OT, but I can't string enough minutes together to make getting into the arena worthwhile anymore. Perhaps when my masters courses are finished I will be able to start again.
As it is, about the only thing I can do now is work for an hour or so, hit the OT on a break, work an hour or so, etc.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
1. You mentioned a couple of months ago your stance was they should let the inspectors back in..
2. That the evidence should be presented to a world body. That the U.N. security council should make a new resolution.
3. Congress should take a vote. I agree with that.
4. Not CIA spooks painting possible targets but actual inspectors. That was one of the reasons Iraq had for ejecting them.
5. This new doctrine of Japanese style pre emptive strikes is just plain wrong.
6. The looting of a sovereign country. Our boys might die so another rich man can get richer. it’s dishonest, it’s immoral, and it’s un American.
7. They want us to move our base out of Saudi Arabia,
8.They want us to spend a little less on Israel.
9. stop trying to impose our culture on the world all the time. You don’t need to pipe in the TEN channel on satellite to these conservative Muslim countries. You don’t need to build McDonalds everywhere. Mind your own business and take care of business..
Numbered your points for easier quoting.
1. Yes, absolutely; in accordance with the UN (ie: pretty much the whole dang world) belief that this will make the world a safer place.
2. Yes, to the UN and to Congress. If they have nothing but speculation, there's no cause for war. If they have hard evidence and Iraq continues to defy the UN resolutions, that's different. That is cause, IMO, to take action.
3. Congress, IMO, is taking the easy way out. They are defaulting on their Constitutional duty. In this particular case, there's plenty of time for debate and time to declare war IF NECESSARY.
However, I think the entire bunch are a bunch of chicken droppings without the balls to do what the Constitution requires... which is say Yes or NO to war with Iraq. They, like so many others, "don't want to be involved". If it goes well, they'll take the credit, if it goes poorly it's all the President's fault.
BS. It's the job of Congress to declare war. There shouldn't be any undeclared wars. And this won't be a "police action" or any other euphemism that allows them to dodge their duty.
So if this is about either weapons or oil it's the job of Congress to send troops. Not the President. Will they abdicate their responsibility?
4. I'll wager several mult-national intelligence agencies had operatives on the various inspection teams. It wouldn't suprise me if somewhere in the "Secret Ops" part of the UN resolutions it wasn't determined to be necessary or desired. You'd want to know everything you could learn.
If Iraq didn't like that... too bloody bad. You become a threat to the rest of the world, unpleasant things like that will happen to you. They could have just stayed out of Kuwait you know. Or taken any one of the several opportunities to withdraw from Kuwait offered to Iraq on a silver platter prior to Desert Storm starting.
5. Disagree. If you have the evidence, I think preemptive is the way to go. If you've got a person in power that's willing to gas his OWN citizens AND he has developed (or is developing) larger and more effective WMD there's no need to wait until he uses them.... OR hands them over to non-Iraqi operatives that will use them.... before you act.
I think there's several examples in 20th Century history where the use of pre-emption would have saved the world a lot of death and destruction.
It's exactly why the UN was founded. Head off trouble pre-emptively. By negotiation if possible, by action if not.
6. This is a conclusion you to which you are jumping a bit early, IMO. There is no doubt that should Hussein be replaced that Iraq will be much more open to world trade. For one thing, I'd expect the sanctions to be removed immediately and for "foreign aid" to be applied. The whole world helped Afghanistan for example and still his. (BTW, have you noted how many Afghan refugees who left under the Taliban have returned?)
Further, oil is without doubt Iraq's main source of foreign trade income. OF COURSE oil companies are going to vy for it. Oil companies from all over the world, not just the US. Your "exploitation" scenario sort of ignores the fact that there are other oil interests in the world market besides the US.
Nor will the oil be stolen or given away. It'll be sold at "market" price and more of the money will be spent on things that Iraq actually needs, not another Presidential Palace.
Further, we need Milo, the commodities trader to come in and give us all a quick lesson on how oil is sold and distributed around the world. I think DNIL also made this point. Iraqi oil is being used right now, and not just by the US.
7. Yep. I'd move out of Saudi. I'd also deal with the Saudi government as if it were an unreliable ally. They are. They are out of touch with their citizenry and obviously unable to control, investigate or even provide data on elements in their society that are a clear and present danger to the US.
8. I'll go you one further. If I were Emperor for a Day, I'd cut off aid to Israel totally. One, they're already the strongest power in the region.. by far.. and they don't need any more hardware. Two, Israel itself is in violation of SEVERAL UN resolutions and they're far outside their UN delineated borders. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
9. Umm.. business IS business. No one MAKES anyone take all 762 satellite channels. Deals for satellite broadcast into a foreign country have to be approved by the government of that particular country I would imagine. If they don't want the Playboy channel, I'm sure that could be written into the agreement. Same with MacDonald's; no US troops land to set up a Mickey D.
In short, acceptance of US culture is a voluntary thing. It's offered, heck it's aggressively marketed.
However all a country has to do is "just say no". Turn off that TV. Cook a little homemade hummus.
But we didn't force the Soviet Union to drink Pepsi, the choice of the cold war generation. They CHOSE to allow Pepsi in for their own reasons.
Countries allow our culture (or disallow it) for their own reasons.
-
10bears, you do know that when we did import from Iraq, that it was 3% of the total imported oil? I suspect that most American oil companies would not bother over 3%.
-
UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL COMMISSION (http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm)
KEY RESOLUTIONS
S/Res/1284 of 17/12/1999 Replacement of UNSCOM by UNMOVIC.
S/Res/1205 of 05/11/1998 Condemnation of Iraq's decision to halt monitoring.
S/Res/1194 of 09/09/1998 Condemnation of Iraq's decision to halt all UNSCOM disarmament work.
S/Res/1154 of 02/03/1998 Endorsement of the MOU on access to Presidential sites.
S/Res/1137 of 12/11/1997 Condemnation of Iraq's behavior, imposition of travel ban.
S/Res/1134 of 23/10/1997 Condemnation of Iraq's behaviour, further sanctions threatened.
S/Res/1115 of 21/06/1997 Condemnation of Iraq's refusal to grant access and interviews.
S/Res/1060 of 12/06/1996 Condemnation of Iraq's refusal to grant inspection access.
S/Res/1051 of 27/03/1996 Approval of export /import monitoring mechanism for Iraq.
S/Res/715 of 11/10/1991 Approval of Ongoing Monitoring and Verification plan.
S/Res/707 of 15/08/1991 Iraq's compliance; inspection flights; Iraq to provide disclosures.
S/Res/699 of 17/06/1991 Iraq to be liable for all costs associated with UNSCOM's work.
S/Res/687 of 03/04/1991 Cease-fire and establishment and mandate of UNSCOM.
-
After spanking Saddam it would be great to lower the oil price to cut the finance of Saoudia ....
and so shuting down those wahhabists bastard
And there is more democratia in Iran currently than there ever was in Saoudia !
-
Ok... thjis is all well and good but how will it affect the price of 92 octane premium at the pump?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok... thjis is all well and good but how will it affect the price of 92 octane premium at the pump?
lazs
Hehe!~
Hey, paying $1.59 here..whats it in your area Lazs?
-
Originally posted by john9001
i give you facts , you give me "what if's" this flame war is over , i hold the moral high ground
44MAG
I asked for two facts, you gave me neither. As you didn't respond to the questions I asked, I expanded on them.
"this flame war is over , i hold the moral high ground"
Where did I insult you? How can you hold ground you just abbandoned and can't defend?
I doubt the morality of any that's willing to sacrifice people's lives, so they can have cheaper gas!
-
Why is it that when the US wants to remove Saddam from power, it's about oil, but when Russia and France want to lift the embargo, it's about starving children? We gotta hook up with their PR guys lol :)
This is something that really does make me sad though. If we were to depose Sadam, I would hope that we could help them build a new regime, one that could become a stable democratic regime. I know better than most the obsticles to this. One thing that could be a dealbreaker is if we extract the oil revenue from the country. I know that a lot of people in the US have a real problem with the concept of "Nation Building" But how are we with "Nation Stealing"? I certainly hope that if we take the government of Iraq away that we do what we can to insure that the new government is not only serving in the interest of the United States, but also in the interest of the Iraqi people. In order for that to happen, I believe that the US must ensure that Revenue from Iraqi oil sales stays in Iraq.
Of course, at the same time, I imagine that the US oil industry could be a great help to the new Iraqi government when it comes to upgrading technology, and modernizing their infrastructure. So we won't know until the dust settles, and then it will be too late.
-Sikboy
-
Its NOT about oil 10bears, look outside the box..the following is long, take the time to educate yourself: Here's a short sample of the report, you can see the full report at
http://www.state.gov/g/inl/rls/fs/index.cfm
A Decade of Deception and Defiance serves as a background paper for President George W. Bush's September 12th speech to the United Nations General Assembly. This document provides specific examples of how Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has systematically and continually violated 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions over the past decade. This document is not designed to catalogue all of the violations of UN resolutions or other abuses of Saddam Hussein's regime over the years.
For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein has deceived and defied the will and resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by, among other things: continuing to seek and develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and prohibited long-range missiles; brutalizing the Iraqi people, including committing gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity; supporting international terrorism; refusing to release or account for prisoners of war and other missing individuals from the Gulf War era; refusing to return stolen Kuwaiti property; and working to circumvent the UN's economic sanctions.
The Administration will periodically provide information on these and other aspects of the threat posed to the international community by Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:
UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
* Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
* Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."
UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
* Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
* Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
* Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
* Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or
rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all
"chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all
related subsystems and components and all research, development,
support and manufacturing facilities."
* Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear
weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research,
development or manufacturing facilities.
* Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or
rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all
"ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related
major parts and repair and production facilities."
* Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of
mass destruction.
* Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify
the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs
and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
* Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
* Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist
organizations to operate in Iraq.
* Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead kuwaitis and others.
* Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
* "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the
consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
* Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
* Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian
organizations to those in need of assistance.
UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
* "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
* "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its
obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security
Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
* Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
* Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
* Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass
destruction, and related materials and facilities.
* Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection
flights throughout Iraq.
* Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support
for UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
* "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
* Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile
manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
* Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.
UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
* Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of
mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
* "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and
Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
* "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation"
of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to
Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
* "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
* Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to
Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.
UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
* "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN
resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of"
aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN
inspector monitoring equipment.
* Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN
inspectors.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and
allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes
that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."
UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend
cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a
totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR
687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
* Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and
allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
* "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease
cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR
687 and other resolutions.
* Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.
[/i]
This is about 40,000 characters long, please see the full report at the website up above.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Hehe!~
Hey, paying $1.59 here..whats it in your area Lazs?
Rip I pay that per liter, so don't squeak yet :D
-
Originally posted by Heater
Rip I pay that per liter, so don't squeak yet :D
hehe, I'm not! I think thats a bargain quite honestly....
-
Personally, I'm still sitting on the fence in regards to an Iraq invasion...but, I can't help but think, whats more important...a madman with Nuclear weapons willing to sell suitcase nukes to Al Queda so that someone can complete the job in New York? Or prevention of the aforementioned?
Glad I'm not the one making the decision....
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
.... If we were to depose Sadam, I would hope that we could help them build a new regime, one that could become a stable democratic regime.... In order for that to happen, I believe that the US must ensure that Revenue from Iraqi oil sales stays in Iraq.
-Sikboy
Well, the Taliban got "deposed" and there's a multi-national effort at nation building going on there.
One would think all involved are doing the best they can. About all one can hope for, isn't it? It's pretty clear that WRT government, the Afghan's certainly aren't doing any WORSE than they were under the Taliban and there's simple evidence that they're doing better. Return of refugees, less starvation, public works projects, etc.
I don't think it's up to the US alone to "ensure" or do anything else about/with Iraqi oil revenue. After all, this is what the UN was founded to handle, isn't it? This nation-rebuilding thing? Another shining opportunity for the world community to help a particular country out of the mess it has gotten into. I'm sure the US would be a part of the effort. But if this UN thing is going to work... it can't be us alone.
And if the UN nation building thing won't work, due to lack of participation, interest or anything else... well then if the US does it alone I guess those who sat on the sidelines really shouldn't have much input, right?
Not that I'm for a US intervention at this point, because I'm not.
-
I think one only needs to look back at postwar Japan and Germany to see what can happen if rebuilding is done right.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Yeah Kieran and Toad... Ole 10Bears is right sometimes
A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.
Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia.
snip
WashingtonPost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18841-2002Sep14.html)
What was that you were sayin' bout me going on about it's all about the oil?... heh
Ya know...not having ever met you, I'm sure you're probably a good guy....however, when it comes to your posts in this forum, you appear to be simpleton.
To imply in any way shape or form that only oil motivates action takin towards Sadaam and his regime is laughable. In addition, you seem to have a problem with Ameicans gaining advantage or profit, especially if it comes off the back of a dictator and a murderer. Who would you like to see benefit from a change in Iraq? (and don't post dribble about the Iraqi citizens....that's a given for anyone with average intelligence).
-
show of hands of people in the oil business? personally, not a friend of a friend. I deal with it everday, drilling from the midcontinent of the US. I work for ExxonMobil. Iraqi oil is used everyday. Oil is the life blood of the world, good or bad.
Raises hand. Do you get National Petroleum News, Dnil? You might not if you're too far upstream.
Iraq, like the Gulf War, is about oil. Period. Now, Saddam is a bad guy who has done bad things and may do bad things in the future. Like many countries, Iraq has ignored a variety of UN sanctions. But without that big pool of oil, who cares? The United States and Europe don't when the oil isn't involved, or when the incident isn't on a border or poses an international power opportunity/threat.
Weapons of mass destruction? My biggest concerns would be N. Korea and PRC.
The reality is that Iraq represents both an opportunity and threat where oil is concerned. The opportunities for the major MULTINATIONAL oil companies like British Petroleum, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell/Texaco (mergers really have shrunk the number of players in this industry) are great, and a valid threat to the regional oil supply exists with Saddam in power.
Post 911 provided a unique opportunity where Afghan pipelines were concerned. Perhaps this effort against Iraq is just a realization that a door has been opened. I don't believe in the 911 Conspiracy BS, but opportunists know an opportunity when they see one. And just like the Democrats, the Republicans, and specifically the Bush candidacy, do have favored patrons to appease. In Bush/Cheney's case - the oil industry.
Rip fully noted the public message designed to make us feel good about the potential war. You can almost watch the same PR progression as in the Gulf War, where Bush Sr. fished around for an issue that the public would get behind other than "blood for oil."
Back then, the first angle attempted was Iraqi atrocities (even hired Hill and Knowlton for message development). Remember, Saddam was specifically called a "Hitler," but for some odd reason we never did the unconditional surrender thing. When the babies in the incubators story failed the truth test, the message moved on to weapons of mass destruction, which played well in the polls. And, of course, returning the great Kuwaiti democracy to its rightful place.
Today, it started with the terrorist angle, but that apparently was a dead end. It then went on to the weapons of mass destruction angle, which worked well the first time but generated no real traction at home or internationally this time around. Now, we're at the UN sanctions angle -- but only if the country involved is Iraq. Even Cheney has started to acknowledge the oil angle in his most recent speeches. Perhaps they are starting to realize that many Americans hold Laz's views.
Major benefits of Iraq war:
1. Oil development and production windfall
2. Securing regional oil supply from threat
3. Greater leverage against OPEC/greater competition/ not necessarily lower prices at the pump but perhaps less price volatility
Threats:
Bin Laden actually gets his region-wide holy war (goal of 911), friendly regimes are overthrown, worldwide financial disruption, WW2 level conflict. Probably an overblown concern.
There is a legal justification for this conflict, and we can find examples for a moral justification. But don't think for a second that we would be pushing for this war without that big lake of oil. Given oil's status as a critical national resource, for both the US and many other countries, we have to ask ourselves if the resource is worth the costs and risks. Perhaps it is, but I felt better about it when Iraqi tanks were rolling through Kuwait.
Charon
-
Much more than a public message Charon, go to the link, read it all. They list all the UN security sanctions that Iraq has failed to comply with.
-
We can't get 92 in the bay area now, but 91 is going from 1.65 to 1.90.
lol Sucks to drive a muclecar now lol!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, the Taliban got "deposed" and there's a multi-national effort at nation building going on there.
I don't think it's up to the US alone to "ensure" or do anything else about/with Iraqi oil revenue. After all, this is what the UN was founded to handle, isn't it? This nation-rebuilding thing? Another shining opportunity for the world community to help a particular country out of the mess it has gotten into. I'm sure the US would be a part of the effort. But if this UN thing is going to work... it can't be us alone.
Toad.
I wouldn't really want to compare the events in post Taliban Afghanistan with those in Post Hussien Iraq. I believe that Afghanistan is almost certainly doomed to failure at this point. The number of factors standing in the way of actual democratic reform are staggaring. Of all the indicators for potential democracy Afghanistan has none that I can think of.
In Iraq on the other hand, I think that there is hope. In Iraq the real trick I think is ensuring a new distibutino of power among the Iraqi people. If we can open education, and spread the oil wealth, we might be able to reap a crop of democracy.
If we go in there as part of a UN mandate, then yes, I should hope the UN will help with the rebuilding effort. But if we move without the consent of the United Nations, then I hope that we will take every effort we can to build a democratic regime that is in the best insterest of the US and Iraqi people. I also think that if we, the people of the United States, concerned ourselves with this goal, that we would be far more effective than the UN at moving towards this end. In the end, it could be the best use ever for our unilateral appraoch to foreign policy.
-Sikboy
-
Sikboy, do you think the US Executive Branch still wants stability in that region?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Sikboy, do you think the US Executive Branch still wants stability in that region?
Surely you are not suggesting that they want the area destablized? Please do tell why they would, meanwhile, I need to check for any black helicoptors overhead,....afk 2 min. ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Surely you are not suggesting that they want the area destablized?
I don't know. That's why I asked. I read that one article posted in AGW. Some people seem to think so.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Sikboy, do you think the US Executive Branch still wants stability in that region?
Yes, I honestly do. In fact, I believe that stability has been our major goal in the region over the past twenty years.
It is true that we sent advisors to Iraq during the Iran Iraq war. And some may see the Gulf war as antithetical to creating stability (and just as many would argue that it was fought to create/maintain stability). Our exhaustive attempts to broker peace between the Isrealis and the Palestinians (unsucessfull no doubt, but honest attemps none the less) Our protection of non-combatants during the Iran Iraq war, our formal diplomatic support and military assistance for many nations, including many Arab nations as well as Israel.
At the end of the day, we want the oil to flow and the best way for that to happen is to encourage stability in the region (oh sure, or we could just go in and take it all, and that's what some people are no doubt thinking we are up to when they look at the US going into Iraq. I dissagree)
Don't get me wrong, there have been some real lame US manuevers in the middle east. The aforementioned advisors in Iraq, while fairly benign didn't need to be there. Deposing the Mossadeq(SP) regime in Iran was about as unamerican as anything I can think of. But by and large, especially since the end of the cold war, I believe that the US has been trying to promote stability. And that is a big chunck of what has people pissed off at us. We have been supporting the current regimes in these countries and they are not very nice.
Sorry, this is about to ramble onto a totally different topic lol.
-Sikboy
-
Charon-
Not saying you're wrong, but even if you are right it is a different spin than presented by 10bears. 10bears makes it sound as though the oil companies are pulling the strings.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
... I believe that Afghanistan is almost certainly doomed to failure at this point. The number of factors standing in the way of actual democratic reform are staggaring. Of all the indicators for potential democracy Afghanistan has none that I can think of....
....But if we move without the consent of the United Nations, then I hope that we will take every effort we can to build a democratic regime that is in the best insterest of the US and Iraqi people...
-Sikboy
Two points:
Afghanistan certainly has a "tough row to hoe" , that's true. However, they still have a MUCH better chance at it now that the Taliban is gone. In short, it couldn't be any worse than it was under the Taliban. Now there is at least world wide aid and an attempt at a democratically selected government. It's a start and it's a much better chance than they had before.
If Iraq turns out as well as Japan then no worries, eh? Where do we find another MacArthur though? Time to see if Colin Powell is truly the leader everyone thinks he is? ;)
-
Iraq, like the Gulf War, is about oil. Period
Not saying you're wrong, but even if you are right it is a different spin than presented by 10bears.
Sigh...
This just in..
White House Dismisses Iraqi Offer
Mon Sep 16, 8:44 PM ET
By GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The White House dismissed an Iraqi offer Monday
to let weapons inspectors return there unconditionally, calling it a
tactical move that did not change the Bush administration's desire to
remove Saddam Hussein
-
Originally posted by Toad
Two points:
Good points. No doubt that Arghanistan is better off without the Taliban. The best that I hope for is a nice totalitarian warlord king, who will rule with a wise fist. I don't think we should abandon them to that lot, but at the same time, I honestly have no idea how to prevent it.
-Sik
-
10bears-
There is a difference. Your stance is that the oil companies are in charge of GWB, and that greed is the only thing that motivates the presidency. The other viewpoint is that oil is vital to the American way of life (try to argue it isn't!), and therefore it is in the best interests of America to keep as much stability as possible in the Middle East.
Surely you can see the difference?
-
Kieren, I certainly concede that there may very well be other motivations at work other than greed -- and likely are given the current president’s family history in this area and that of his administration advisers. Saddam Hussein is not only a threat, he’s a constant irritation to any sitting president. If you look at the Axis of Evil speech, it is possible that there was some administration “vision” of a unified world cleaning up all the trouble spots. A nice sentiment, but you have to wonder how practical it is even with the cooperation of allied nations. And, I do believe that the driving factor, what set Iraq aprat from similar villians, can only be oil.
However, greed, IMO, must still be considered as part of the "mix" of motivations. Just how much it or any other factor is the dominates the action is the debate, IMO. Primary driver or ancillary benefit? The various motivations expressed by a variety of parties seem to be:
The purely self-interest angle. The US and British multinational oil companies controlled 75% of the Iraqi oil production until the nationalization of Iraqi oil in 1972. Iraq increasingly turned to the Soviet and French governments for development funds and partnerships. Further, the Iraqi oil production infrastructure is in very sorry shape, requiring tremendous improvement efforts, which will benefit a broad range of manufacturing companies. Also, Iraqi crude is really sweet crude. It is low sulfur, which helps a US refining industry that is gearing up with substantial infrastructure upgrades to meet new gasoline and diesel low-sulfur rules in the next five years or so. The lower the sulfur in the crude, the easier it is to produce low-sulfur petroleum products like diesel and gasoline. I couldn’t imagine that this oil would prevent having to make these expensive upgrades completely. It might reduce the modifications but you would have to assume 100 percent utilization. It might lower operational costs when used compared to other crude, but I don’t know enough about cracking towers, etc. to say.
The threat to oil supplies angle. Here’s what Cheney himself has to say about Hussein, weapons of mass destruction and oil at a recent VFW speech. "… What he wants is time, and more time to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons," Cheney said. "Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror and a seat atop 10 percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."
The “proactive” benefits angle. The following is from a Boston Globe article. “Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, contends that a pro-US Iraq would lead to a reassessment of the US-Saudi alliance, which dates to World War II but has become strained since Sept. 11 attacks, and the worsening of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A friendly Iraq - home to the world's second-largest oil reserves - would provide an alternative to Saudi Arabia for basing US troops. Its oil reserves would make Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil exporter, less important in setting prices, he said. In general, others contend, a US-allied Iraq could work to diminish the influence of OPEC, long dominated by Saudi Arabia, over oil supplies and prices. The reserves under Iraq are second only to Saudi Arabia.”
From a practical, non-oil perspective, it has been theorized that a friendly, democratic Iraqi regime would serve as a shining example for the region, lessen the threat to Israel, eliminate the sanctions which have been highly criticized, improve the lot of the Iraqi people, perhaps encourage secular efforts in Iran, perhaps encourage a friendlier Syria, spearhead an international crusade to end threats and irritations from the Axis of Evil(tm)… It sounds good, but as proud as I am of the US we don’t seem to have had all that much success after the Marshall plan with our nation building efforts in Latin America, the Middle East and Asia. The democracy is often democracy in name only, with little long-term viability. This is more frightening to me than any of the oil motives, because it could lead to the exact opposite of intentions. Hard to say.
Rip, I full agree that Iraq has violated UN sanctions, I am just noting that this wasn’t much of a public issue until about two weeks ago. It is a justification, a definite legality, but more of a message and justifier than the motivation. I’m sure that from this day forward we will be focusing with laser-like attention on sanctioned countries like Angola, Liberia, Rwanda, and Somalia (at least still sanctioned as of May 2002). Not to mention the countries that help violate sanctions.
Take Angola, for example. A variety of countries either formally, or through a general lack of enforcement, allowed sanction violations to occur ranging from arms and fuel exports to diamond imports. A list includes Burkina Faso, Togo, Zaire, Rwanda, Zambia, Gabon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Morocco, Namibia, Republic of Congo, South Africa, Belgium, France, Portugal, Switzerland, and the United States. What about PRC and North Korea, which have sold arms in violation of various sanctions but managed to avoid a “formal” involvement?”
It will be interesting to see how the administration reacts to the current Iraqi offer. “Won’t take yes for an answer…” (thanks Guradian) would seem to be the case initially. Officials were stating up until the announcement that they had no doubt that Hussein would reject the US demands (and I don’t believe Hussein has accepted all the demands as of yet though). However, for a Texan, our president’s poker skills seem to be lacking. All Hussein had to do was call the bluff. The conditions made this a steep bet for Hussein, but GW has to draw another card since his UN support just took a hit. Perhaps this is the face-saving event both parties need right now. Perhaps not.
Charon
-
Well thought out, and I agree with the various postulations' merits. I happen to think the U.S. push is motivated by the combination of all the factors listed, perhaps more.
Personally, I am more concerned about our ties with Israel and the impact of conflict in the Middle East than the oil. I don't want to see WMD developed in Iraq from the standpoint that, if Iraq should ever use them, Israel would go nuke faster than you could spell "Hanukkah". That would inevitably develop into a world-wide conflict.