Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: OZkansas on March 17, 2003, 08:40:41 PM
-
I keep hearing from so called experts that the USA will have to foot the bill to rebuild Iraq. Billions and billions of USA taxpayer monies will be diverted to rebuild Iraq to the point that all the children of America will starve!
Can someone inform me as to why suddenly oil under Iraq has become worthless? I predict that Iraq will have more wealth then Saudia's and Kuwaite's combined within 5 years!
-
the figure I've heard is 6 trillion dollars in proven reserves under Iraq. That much could finance a Marshall Plan for all of Africa, Asia and Latin America
-
Because the wars not about oil...remember?
Tronsky
-
its not about oil idiot.
What he is saying is the Iraqi people can use the wealth of the Iraqi oil to subsidize the rebuilding of the Iraqi nation.
But Taxpayer money will be used as well and its better spent their then on thing like the Dept of Education (which doesnt educate anyone) and bunch of other worthless federal programs. Unfortunately they wont do that they will waste money at home while helping rebuild Iraq.
How much did 9/11 cost us?
How much would future attack with wmd cost us?
We dont get anything for free.
-
Originally posted by Batz
its not about oil idiot.
What he is saying is the Iraqi people can use the wealth of the Iraqi oil to subsidize the rebuilding of the Iraqi nation.
Maybe the oil is a "plus" for the seven sisters?
With the ELF out of the equation... (the REAL reason why France is opposing, not the BS about peace and war).
Will be difficult for the Iraqi people to take advantage of the reserves, after the "friendly" new government will give the concessions to the US oil companies.
Cynic?
World politic IS cynic.
P.S.
Why add that idi... word?
-
I got the impression from his speech, and I can't remember exactly what he said, that Iraq could use the wealth of it's nation to rebuild.
-
If the US wanted Iraqi oil it would ours.
What will happen is the UN and Countries like France Germany China and Japan will come together and support the US/UK rebuilding Iraq to get their foot in the door. The New government of Iraq will have complete control of the oil in Iraq and will decide how to use it.
If US companies get contracts great, but dont imply that is a reason the US is invading Iraq. The US wont force contracts on the new Iraqi government.
We are preparing to open up Alaska, once the situation in Venezuela gets resolved the US wont have any need for Iraqi oil.
-
Who's going to pay for the long term US troop presence in Iraq?
-
We always pay our for our troops. Why do you care any way?
We have paid for our long term presence in Europe, the Far east and any where we go.
-
Originally posted by Naso
Maybe the oil is a "plus" for the seven sisters?
With the ELF out of the equation... (the REAL reason why France is opposing, not the BS about peace and war).
Will be difficult for the Iraqi people to take advantage of the reserves, after the "friendly" new government will give the concessions to the US oil companies.
Cynic?
World politic IS cynic.
P.S.
Why add that idi... word?
So this war is about sucking Iraqi Oil like a thirsty drunk and throw the empty bottle after ?
Damned I've lot my innocence now :(
-
Originally posted by Batz
We always pay our for our troops. Why do you care any way?
We have paid for our long term presence in Europe, the Far east and any where we go.
That's why GWBush need UN support ...because without UN backing who will pay ?
-
Well, the issue is US funding of this endeavour.
I would have thought the funding of the US armed forces was quite relevant to the discussion. Or will the Iraqi oil pay for them as well?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Well, the issue is US funding of this endeavour.
I would have thought the funding of the US armed forces was quite relevant to the discussion. Or will the Iraqi oil pay for them as well?
To the victor go the spoils....it'll be amazing what the 'new improved' Iraqi govt. will want to fund with their oil.
Plus no doubt te Saudi's will kick in...they aparently fund alot of things...
Tronsky
-
Tronski wrote:
> To the victor go the spoils....it'll be amazing what the 'new improved' Iraqi govt. will want to fund with their oil.
Plus no doubt te Saudi's will kick in...they aparently fund alot of things...
Funding yeah, a new Government will need to exploit Iraqs oil - Say contract Exxon or Shell to build mines and pipelines. Say they`ll need qualified personell. That`s a world of opportunity for US corporations.
-
Originally posted by devious
Funding yeah, a new Government will need to exploit Iraqs oil - Say contract Exxon or Shell to build mines and pipelines. Say they`ll need qualified personell. That`s a world of opportunity for US corporations.
Is that Royal Dutch Shell?
"The Royal Dutch/Shell Group of companies (The Group) came about as a result of an arrangement in 1907 between two separate companies, Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (Royal Dutch) and The "Shell" Transport and Trading Company p.l.c. (Shell Transport)."
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=home (http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=home)
Funny that a US corporation should be founded in Amsterdam.
-
norway have oil and gas reserves enogh for suppling europes need for the next 50 years and nobody has invaded us yet :)
well, for 60 years ago tough but no oil at that time rofl.
-
Straffo
The UN will be begging to help the US rebuild Iraq, not the other way around. The US has independent plan for rebuilding. But the UN and your country France will want a part. Not because they are "humanitarians" but because they have an existing financial interest in Iraqi oil.
No Dowding this threads about the funds needed to rebuild Iraq, not who pays the US military. The US taxpayers pays its soldiers and why are you concerned with that?
The US plan to rebuild Iraq has been linked on this board and is based on the events in Kosovo where private organizations are contracted to fill a variety of needs. The next Iraqi government would have an interest in getting the US out of its major afairs. To do so it would make sense that they help in anyway they can.
In the short term the US is prepared to bring in Food and medicine and has been in contact with the red cross and other groups of this type to distribute this aid.
The US and UK wont lock the UN out and would welcome their help. Especially if it gets our troops home and saves us money. In the case with UK they may want the UN their but the US wont go on bended knee to an irrelevant organization. Regardless of what the UN does the US will depose Saddam, liberate and rebuild Iraq.
These are inescapable facts. You can make up any motivation you want, hold all the candle light hippy degenerate marches you want, espouse nutty conspiracies etc... But these arguements are as irrelevant as the UN.
-
Dangit, Holden. I stand corrected.
And why not have the dutch profit, too ? German Companies reaped the profits of Saddam`s desire for weapons.
-
You are certaily right Batz our "megacorps" will fight over the cadavers to gain influence and market ..
-
No Dowding this threads about the funds needed to rebuild Iraq, not who pays the US military. The US taxpayers pays its soldiers and why are you concerned with that?
I guess I'll have to spell it out. Who's going to provide the security to keep all the various factions from killing each other so that rebuilding is possible? Or are you saying the US troops will leave that to 'whoever'?
If you think a large scale military presence will not be required in post-war Iraq, you're living in cloud cuckoo land.
-
If you think a large scale military presence will not be required in post-war Iraq, you're living in cloud cuckoo land.
Who said that?
You asked
Who's going to pay for the long term US troop presence in Iraq?
Here is the answer
We always pay for our troops. Why do you care any way?
We have paid for our long term presence in Europe, the Far east and any where we go.
Is that clear enough.
Bush has said that the US will not remain in Iraq any longer then necessary. If that 5 years or 50 thats what he said.
So why do you care
Who's going to pay for the long term US troop presence
The shortest distance between 2 pionts is a straight line, quit running yourself in circles.
-
It's about time we freed someone from oppression and it was mutually beneficial. Had to happen sooner or later.
-
Ozkansas is asking about the costs of rebuilding. He clearly believes the US shouldn't carry that burden. I'm asking about the forces needed to enable rebuilding. Does he believe the Iraqis should pay for them?
-
Anyone have any idea how much rebuilding Europe cost the US tax payers? the cost of rebuilding Japan? It will be done and it is the right thing to do.
How much will a Small atomic bomb set off on Wall St. cost?
How much will a nuclear war in the Mid. East cost?
What is freedom worth to the Irac people worth (anyone asked them)?
What good is money anyway if you cant do the right thing with it.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Ozkansas is asking about the costs of rebuilding. He clearly believes the US shouldn't carry that burden. I'm asking about the forces needed to enable rebuilding. Does he believe the Iraqis should pay for them?
Iraq won't be "paying" anything in cash terms, but instead they will receive "less" than the full sale price for their oil.
Call it a commission, management fee...WHATEVER. All that will happen is that instead of receiving NOTHING the new Iraq will receive whatever they get from the sale of their oil worldwide...with this fee deducted.
I see NO problem with that. I think they should have to bear the cost of ridding their country of Sadaam, rebuilding what needed to be destroyed to do so, and for keeping the religious nutjobs at bay while it all happens. It is a very fair trade.
-
Fair enough, but which religious nutjobs do you refer to? The Shi'ites who want to kill the Kurds? Or the Kurds who want to kill the Shi'ites? Or the Kurds and the Shi'ites who want to kill the Sunnis?
I just think this could be an impossible job that to give our armed forces. Afghanistan is a good example.
-
after the US troops get rid of saddam , the US will send over 100,000 war protesters to keep the peace. they will march and give speeches and tell the iraqis how bad war is and carry signs like "no blood for oil" "impeach war monger bush"
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Afghanistan is a good example.
Afghanistan is a terrible example in my opinion. I do not feel that the two countries have enough in common to make the connection.
-Sik
-
Nooooooooooo!!! Not the children!!!!
Originally posted by OZkansas
Billions and billions of USA taxpayer monies will be diverted to rebuild Iraq to the point that all the children of America will starve!
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Ozkansas is asking about the costs of rebuilding. He clearly believes the US shouldn't carry that burden. I'm asking about the forces needed to enable rebuilding. Does he believe the Iraqis should pay for them?
The point I am making is that some think that Iraq is a poor nation without any form of income. Experts seem to forget the oil under Iraq and the wealth that it represents will not be used to rebuild Iraq. The leftist democrats seem unable to connect the dots, as usual.
The question of how long the USA will need to be in Iraq to keep the various factions separated is a good question. I guess a presents will need to be there till all are settled. I hope that the USA will have a long term presents as the USA will have a base to project its power in the Middle East!
I see only good things for the future of the Middle East with a USA presents in the region:)
-
whats wrong with Afghanistan ??
now that the taliban are gone afgan girls can go to school, afgan women can go back to their jobs, little boys can fly kites, and the soccer field is used for soccer not executions , the people are raising food , the water system is being rebuilt, the roads are being repaired, etc etc
damm imperial americans, always sticking their big noses in.
-
Originally posted by john9001
after the US troops get rid of saddam , the US will send over 100,000 war protesters to keep the peace. they will march and give speeches and tell the iraqis how bad war is and carry signs like "no blood for oil" "impeach war monger bush"
Dixie Chicks will lead the singing:)
-
ohh yea like isreal has been . try reality on for size the rest of the world has spoken. they dont like us siezeing anyone elses country. hell i agree. wrap yourself in a flag and your still spouting crap in a messy flag.
-
Afghanistan is a terrible example in my opinion.
True, there's no oil, and that might be Iraq's saving grace.
But apart from that, Afghanistan is an excellent example. Big promises of freedom and the people are no better off for being rid of the Taliban. The country is still a mess outside of Kabul, and even there the peace is fragile. Only a small fraction of the $20 billion needed to rebuild the country has been offered - but like I said, Iraq's oil will probably make that much less of an issue.
When all's said and done Iraq is an artificial country comprised of various tribes who have some very heavy axes to grind. Given half a chance chance, do you really think they are going to hold hands around the camp fire?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
When all's said and done Iraq is an artificial country comprised of various tribes who have some very heavy axes to grind. Given half a chance chance, do you really think they are going to hold hands around the camp fire?
When all's said and done America is an artificial country comprised of various tribes who have some very heavy axes to grind. Given half a chance chance, do you really think they are going to hold hands around the camp fire?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Afghanistan is an excellent example. Big promises of freedom and the people are no better off for being rid of the Taliban.
How the hell can you say that with a straight face? Are you saying the claims that John9001 made in an earlier post are false? I'd REALLY like to know how you define better off.
-
If the Iraqi military collapses as quickly as some experts think it will, there may be very little damage to clean up. Nevertheless, the U.S. should help rebuild what IS damaged in order to lend support to whatever government takes over after Saddam is deposed.
Cast as many doubts as you will on our motives for invading Iraq, but I feel that many of his neighbors will breathe a collective sigh of relief when he, and his weapons of mass destruction, are gone.
Regards, Shuckins
-
AkIron,
What he's saying is that we misunderstood when we saw all those Afghanis dancing in the streets after the defeat of the Taliban. We misunderstood when they dug up their buried televisions that had been banned. We also misunderstood when the Afghani men shaved off their beards that they had been required to grow. We didn't understand when they rushed to reestablish schools for their young girls.
Aren't we ashamed that we are so naive as to believe that they are not better off?
Regards, Shuckins
-
I believe it's been said that the US will assume the responsibility of governing Iraq until a democratic government can be instituted.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Ozkansas is asking about the costs of rebuilding. He clearly believes the US shouldn't carry that burden. I'm asking about the forces needed to enable rebuilding. Does he believe the Iraqis should pay for them?
The benefit recieved by this action will in itself more than pay for our troop involvement....it's a strong statement sent to other nations and terrorist groups themselves to consider their actions.
Just one single 9-11 event stopped by this action by far pays for our military involvement.
As to cash....Iraqi oil will offset much of the cost...as it should.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Aren't we ashamed that we are so naive as to believe that they are not better off?
What WAS I thinking? ;)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
When all's said and done Iraq is an artificial country comprised of various tribes who have some very heavy axes to grind. Given half a chance chance, do you really think they are going to hold hands around the camp fire?
While the cultural divisions of the Iraqi people are certainly going to be the sticking point to any effort at fostering a representative government in the region, I feel that they will be significantly easier to work with than the base tribalism found in Afghanistan.
I thought I had gone over this before in here, but after searching, It must have been in BW. Anyhow, here's something I put together a few years ago, and I use it as a model for understanding the odds for and against democracy. http://home.earthlink.net/~acesarz3/papers/democac.htm
I feel that Iraq stands a significantly greater chance of being able to transform into a true islamic republic than Afghanistan does.
-Sik
-
Afghan police 'abusing rights' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2843217.stm)
Afghan security situation 'urgent' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2656761.stm)
Afghanistan's uneasy peace (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2569347.stm)
"Yes, a quarter of girls are back in school, some women have returned to work, and the sounds of music and television permeate the dusty suburbs of Kabul.
But there are no women singers on radio, and musicians talk of beatings when they play.
There has been opposition to girls' schooling
Schools in two provinces have been rocketed and burnt - and night letters delivered to warn teachers of giving instruction to girls.
Outside the capital, private militias impose the will of powerbrokers, in contradiction of the wishes of the central government, and the president.
These men do their masters' work, by looting, imposing duties on trade, and 'protecting' and taxing the people. "
Warlords overshadow Afghan army (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2544091.stm)
"...far bigger warlords are back in power after defeating the Taleban, and some are still fighting in the north and west.
Meanwhile, former Taleban elements in the south could re-equip quickly if the opportunity arose."
Agencies threaten Afghan pullout (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2047675.stm)
"The UN Special Representative in Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, has demanded urgent action from two leading factional commanders - General Abdul Rashid Dostum and General Atta Mohamed - to stop what he calls an alarming level of violence, lawlessness and intimidation."
Afghanistan's unfulfilled dreams (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2460089.stm)
Afghanistan retakes heroin crown (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2814861.stm)
"Afghanistan retook its place as the world's leading producer of heroin last year, after US-led forces overthrew the Taleban which had banned cultivation of opium poppies."
Not quite the rosy picture some of you paint.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Afghan police 'abusing rights' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2843217.stm)
Afghan security situation 'urgent' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2656761.stm)
Afghanistan's uneasy peace (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2569347.stm)
"Yes, a quarter of girls are back in school, some women have returned to work, and the sounds of music and television permeate the dusty suburbs of Kabul.
But there are no women singers on radio, and musicians talk of beatings when they play.
There has been opposition to girls' schooling
Schools in two provinces have been rocketed and burnt - and night letters delivered to warn teachers of giving instruction to girls.
Outside the capital, private militias impose the will of powerbrokers, in contradiction of the wishes of the central government, and the president.
These men do their masters' work, by looting, imposing duties on trade, and 'protecting' and taxing the people. "
Warlords overshadow Afghan army (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2544091.stm)
"...far bigger warlords are back in power after defeating the Taleban, and some are still fighting in the north and west.
Meanwhile, former Taleban elements in the south could re-equip quickly if the opportunity arose."
Agencies threaten Afghan pullout (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2047675.stm)
"The UN Special Representative in Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, has demanded urgent action from two leading factional commanders - General Abdul Rashid Dostum and General Atta Mohamed - to stop what he calls an alarming level of violence, lawlessness and intimidation."
Afghanistan's unfulfilled dreams (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2460089.stm)
Afghanistan retakes heroin crown (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2814861.stm)
"Afghanistan retook its place as the world's leading producer of heroin last year, after US-led forces overthrew the Taleban which had banned cultivation of opium poppies."
Not quite the rosy picture some of you paint.
Nor the simplistic one sided picture you paint....your point is the US should have left well enough alone? You prefer the Taliban?
So no oppressed people should be given the opportunity for self rule? Just leave them to their current oppression would be your call?
Sittin behind you monitor criticizing the people making efforts to bring about positive change in this world is sad and shameful.
The good news is this....add twenty more years to your young passionate little hiney and you'll find the middle ground often referred to as the truth.:)
-
That's right. The BBC is biased against the US.
Anymore inane arguments?
I never said the US shouldn't have got involved in Afghanistan - I'm saying that it has had few benefits so far. The average Afghani is still bullied around by gun-toting thugs.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
I never said the US shouldn't have got involved in Afghanistan -
I think that's exactly what you're saying.
-
OZkansas: Billions and billions of USA taxpayer monies will be diverted to rebuild Iraq to the point that all the children of America will starve!
Don't worry - we just print those as needed. If we ever run out of paper to print more, we can always find Canada in violation of something and liberate them too.
miko
-
I think that's exactly what you're saying.
It's a shame that's really the best you can do.
You asked for a counter-point to 9001's post and I gave it with sources.