Russia hints at possible use of veto

[Marilyn Manson]

The possibility of a second resolution slips further and further away....

Looks like an American lead coalition is teh likely now.

[wu_trax]

i still hope for a 'no' by china, russia and france. the rest doesnt really matter anyways

[Bloomers III]

stupid people. I don't mind russia or china using their veto. but the french just annoy me, with their stupid HYPOCRATIC GREEDY CHAUVONIST TWATTY PRESIDENT. we don't want to go to war with iraq because we're making money from them!

[Emperorn]

That would certainly be interesting.

At least it would be fun to see Bush/Rumsfeld do their "spoiled child who doesn't get his way"-act once again, and how much of that Russia would put up with.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Bloomers III
we don't want to go to war with iraq because we're making money from them!

is that any better than "we want to go to war so that we can make money from them"?

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally posted by wu_trax
i still hope for a 'no' by china, russia and france. the rest doesnt really matter anyways

Do you want the UN to look a fool? cos that's all that will happen if it does not approve military action.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
Do you want the UN to look a fool? cos that's all that will happen if it does not approve military action.

i want the UNO to decide about military action, not bush. if the uno only becomes an instrument to legetimate us-imperialism then we can aswell forget the whole idea.

[Marilyn Manson]

If they don't think they can swing it, then they simply won't go for a second resolution - whether or not Russia etc are willing to vote 'yea' or 'nay' on it will be worked out beforehand through telephone calls etc.

Bush and co would look the silliest if The UN voted against - not to mention the huge loss of legitimacy that would entail.

Imagine The UN voting against something you wanted to do. Wouldn't exactly put you on the moral high ground, would it?

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by wu_trax
is that any better than "we want to go to war so that we can make money from them"?

A war with Iraq will cost the US far more than we could possibly earn back in 20 years.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
If they don't think they can swing it, then they simply won't go for a second resolution - whether or not Russia etc are willing to vote 'yea' or 'nay' on it will be worked out beforehand through telephone calls etc.

Bush and co would look the silliest if The UN voted against - not to mention the huge loss of legitimacy that would entail.

Imagine The UN voting against something you wanted to do. Wouldn't exactly put you on the moral high ground, would it?

Who stands to benifit the most if the UN is shown to be ineffective? The US. Without the UN holding the US back we can do anything we want. Instead of losing everything over a two bit dictator perhaps the UN should instead start enforceing it's own resolutions. In other words, if the UN votes no and we go in anyway, it is the UN that suffers the most, the US will not.

Russia is only seeking assurances that it's interests will be protected and it's economy will not suffer. If the US convinces them of that they will side with us. You don't really think they care about Saddam per-say do you?

France can go play with themselves, I don't think anyone in the US cares anymore what they think, do, or say, they have only managed to alienate themselves from us, and Germany is fast reaching that point.

[SilverSmoke]

Originally posted by Nixjim
A war with Iraq will cost the US far more than we could possibly earn back in 20 years.

you are kidding aren't you?

There's a huge potential market up there to sell products and there's the influence on the oil-industry.

[Sub]

Originally posted by Nixjim
A war with Iraq will cost the US far more than we could possibly earn back in 20 years.

It would kill a recession though.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Nixjim
A war with Iraq will cost the US far more than we could possibly earn back in 20 years.

dont underestimate the influence of a low oil price

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by wu_trax
dont underestimate the influence of a low oil price

not necessarily.. The US no longer has a war economy. Unlike the last several conflicts, the possibility of war is HURTING the economy. Also, US action in Iraq will not necessarily guarantee US control of Iraq's future or it's resources. Any action, with or without UN approval will be under the premise of removal of Saddam Hussein as dictator of Iraq and complete disarmament. Once the war's objectives are accomplished, it would be politically impossible for the US to seize a controlling interest in Iraq.

Regardless of how it starts, it will be the responisibility of the international community to repair the damage. To do otherwise would give the US and UK free license to take whatever they want, and I think it's pretty damn obvious that France and Russia would rather die first.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by SilverSmoke
you are kidding aren't you?

There's a huge potential market up there to sell products and there's the influence on the oil-industry.

If you have access to this weeks Newsweek, March 10 issue, read the article on page 37 called "Blood, Oil, and Iraq" by Michael Hirsh
A small qoute from the article:

In truth, except for Bush's harshest critics, few people believe that the seemingly imminent war invloves a stark trade of blood for oil. Not least because such a policy makes no sense, oil experts say. Even if Washington were to seize Iraq's oil industry, the expense of a U.S. war and occupation will far outweigh any benifit from Iraq's 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. Even a two term Bush Presidency would be long over before Iraq's broken econmy realized its full capacity of 6 million barrels or more.


No, I am not kidding, there is no immediate profit from a war, the only profit will come far down the road as a result of the rebuilding efforts.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
not necessarily.. The US no longer has a war economy. Unlike the last several conflicts, the possibility of war is HURTING the economy. Also, US action in Iraq will not necessarily guarantee US control of Iraq's future or it's resources. Any action, with or without UN approval will be under the premise of removal of Saddam Hussein as dictator of Iraq and complete disarmament. Once the war's objectives are accomplished, it would be politically impossible for the US to seize a controlling interest in Iraq.

on the short term there might be a damage, but i somehow got the feeling that this isnt bushs last 'adventure'. who do you think will set the goverment in iraq? the people of iraq?

Regardless of how it starts, it will be the responisibility of the international community to repair the damage. To do otherwise would give the US and UK free license to take whatever they want, and I think it's pretty damn obvious that France and Russia would rather die first.

i dont get this: bush just takes what he wants, he obviously wants to do it alone, no matter what. so what exactly could france and russia do?

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Nixjim
If you have access to this weeks Newsweek, March 10 issue, read the article on page 37 called "Blood, Oil, and Iraq" by Michael Hirsh
A small qoute from the article:

In truth, except for Bush's harshest critics, few people believe that the seemingly imminent war invloves a stark trade of blood for oil. Not least because such a policy makes no sense, oil experts say. Even if Washington were to seize Iraq's oil industry, the expense of a U.S. war and occupation will far outweigh any benifit from Iraq's 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. Even a two term Bush Presidency would be long over before Iraq's broken econmy realized its full capacity of 6 million barrels or more.


No, I am not kidding, there is no immediate profit from a war, the only profit will come far down the road as a result of the rebuilding efforts.

the point is to get rid of the opec. the iraq has the capacity to break the whole cartell and thats obviously exactly the plan. (i wonder which oil experts think otherwise)

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by wu_trax
the point is to get rid of the opec. the iraq has the capacity to break the whole cartell and thats obviously exactly the plan. (i wonder which oil experts think otherwise)

Don't take this wrong, but you are incrediably naive about world affairs. You could not be farther from the truth if you wanted to be.
Fortunately? I am really getting tired of repeating the same facts over and over again, so I'll let others take over.

[Grind]

Originally posted by wu_trax
[b]on the short term there might be a damage, but i somehow got the feeling that this isnt bushs last 'adventure'. who do you think will set the goverment in iraq? the people of iraq?


i dont get this: bush just takes what he wants, he obviously wants to do it alone, no matter what. so what exactly could france and russia do?

rumsfeld said it best, going to war without france is like going hunting without an acordian.

the usa would love to have you come with us, unfortuneatly europeans are a buntch of pacifists that make resolutions AND DON'T ****ING STAND BY THEM. if 1441 wasn't unnamously voted on and it didn't threat SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES for iraq then maybe i would have a different view. what you thought the usa was joking? lol. you wish to have the united states follow and abide by the united nations however the united nations wont even abide by it's own resolutions, so if the un doesn't abide by the things it creates, WHY THE **** SHOULD THE US abide?

furthur more, bushy has congressionaal backing, and, backing under 1441, whether you like it or not. clinton didn't have congressional backing, clinton didn't go to the un in 1998 when he bombed iraq. did you cry then?

this shouldn't be a usa issue, it should be an issue for the world community, but when the world community does not act, well then we got to do it ourselves.

[/rant]

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by wu_trax
the point is to get rid of the opec. the iraq has the capacity to break the whole cartell and thats obviously exactly the plan. (i wonder which oil experts think otherwise)

Assuming the US could gain full control of the ENTIRE Iraqi oil supply (as if that would even be REMOTELY possible), we couldn't pump enough oil to challenge OPEC. The entire blood for oil hypothesis is completely moronic. I can't even begin to comprehend how the US would pull such a coup de grace without running into a giant wall of international pressure and extremely pissed off arab nations willing to invade to reclaim their land.

The problem is sensationalist, anti-war reporters are hopping on everything they can think of, and I've yet to see one coherent argument as to exactly how such a scheme could be successfully pulled off.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Grind
rumsfeld said it best, going to war without france is like going hunting without an acordian.

im not from france

the usa would love to have you come with us, unfortuneatly europeans are a buntch of pacifists that make resolutions AND DON'T ****ING STAND BY THEM. if 1441 wasn't unnamously voted on and it didn't threat SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES for iraq then maybe i would have a different view. what you thought the usa was joking? lol. you wish to have the united states follow and abide by the united nations however the united nations wont even abide by it's own resolutions, so if the un doesn't abide by the things it creates, WHY THE **** SHOULD THE US abide?

dont start with uno-resolutions. where does this sudden care for un-resolutions in the us come from??? how many resolutions did israel break in the past? 1441 says "serious concequence" because noone wanted to legitimate a war back then. if anyone would have wanted war, they would have written "war" into that resolution, they didnt.

furthur more, bushy has congressionaal backing, and, backing under 1441, whether you like it or not. clinton didn't have congressional backing, clinton didn't go to the un in 1998 when he bombed iraq. did you cry then?

your iraq-policy was ****ed up from the very beginning, all the time.

this shouldn't be a usa issue, it should be an issue for the world community, but when the world community does not act, well then we got to do it ourselves.

[/rant]

how exactly should the world community act? the only opinion bush seems to allow the rest of the world is supporting him.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Sandsnake
Assuming the US could gain full control of the ENTIRE Iraqi oil supply (as if that would even be REMOTELY possible), we couldn't pump enough oil to challenge OPEC. The entire blood for oil hypothesis is completely moronic.

you dont need to pump that much, you only have to increase the oil production. the other opec-countries will have to follow, because they need their current revenue. its not that difficult.

I can't even begin to comprehend how the US would pull such a coup de grace without running into a giant wall of international pressure and extremely pissed off arab nations willing to invade to reclaim their land.

yes, international pressure, well, you face international pressure right now and its not like you actually care about it, do you?

The problem is sensationalist, anti-war reporters are hopping on everything they can think of, and I've yet to see one coherent argument as to exactly how such a scheme could be successfully pulled off.

as i said: if the iraq increases its production, the others will follow, because they need the money. and given that some estimations about iraqie oilreserves place it on one level with saudi arabia, there should be quite a lot possible.

[Sub]

Originally posted by Grind
rumsfeld said it best, going to war without france is like going hunting without an acordian.

the usa would love to have you come with us, unfortuneatly europeans are a buntch of pacifists that make resolutions AND DON'T ****ING STAND BY THEM. if 1441 wasn't unnamously voted on and it didn't threat SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES for iraq then maybe i would have a different view. what you thought the usa was joking? lol. you wish to have the united states follow and abide by the united nations however the united nations wont even abide by it's own resolutions, so if the un doesn't abide by the things it creates, WHY THE **** SHOULD THE US abide?

furthur more, bushy has congressionaal backing, and, backing under 1441, whether you like it or not. clinton didn't have congressional backing, clinton didn't go to the un in 1998 when he bombed iraq. did you cry then?

this shouldn't be a usa issue, it should be an issue for the world community, but when the world community does not act, well then we got to do it ourselves.

[/rant]

How aren't they complying? Aren't they destroying those missiles as we speak?

[MAdnRisKy]

You know what amuses me the most?

10 years ago we had a legitimate reason to thoroughly "do over" iraq and we let it pass by because it wasn't in our interests and the thing had dragged on long enough.

Now there's a need for one, propmoted largely by selfish political reasons rather than humanitarian international reasons, and you can't find a decent legitimate reason to justify the proposed actions.

If America and co had decent insentives a while back, this "problem" wouldn't exist. As it is it's been left to fester away until it comes to a head (which lets face it at some point it has to). It's just unfortunate (or perhaps fortunate in some eyes) that the timing chosen co-incides with a failing American president using war as a means to keep his population on side.

(Americans always were gun tooting loonies anyway)*


*less serious point, please don't waste your time pointing out why this particular statement is pure speculative rubbish

[Grind]

Originally posted by wu_trax
im not from france

never said you were i just thought it was a funny quote

dont start with uno-resolutions. where does this sudden care for un-resolutions in the us come from??? how many resolutions did israel break in the past? 1441 says "serious concequence" because noone wanted to legitimate a war back then. if anyone would have wanted war, they would have written "war" into that resolution, they didnt.

first, the un is VERY biased against israel, (i'll write about that later if you wish) furthur more the resolutions against israel were non binding if i remember correctly. you must be joking if you think serious consequences is tripiling the inspectors. give me a break. you knew serious consequences meant war and so did the rest of the world.

how exactly should the world community act? the only opinion bush seems to allow the rest of the world is supporting him.

don't claim legitmacy in the united nations if it's not legit. it's just a debating society now.

[Grind]

Originally posted by Sub
How aren't they complying? Aren't they destroying those missiles as we speak?

oh that's right, those 100 missiles, that's all the usa has a problem with, not the 25000 liters of antrax, or the 38000 liters of botulinum toxin, or the 500 tons of mustard, sarin, and vx nerve gas.

i also find it high suspicious that they start disarming 2-3 missiles a day only when 250000 us troops are on their border. heh.

[Sub]

Ah yes, these supposed stores of weapons no one can find, and no one has any proof of. I remember them.

[xtothez]

Lets see if I can sum this up right. On one side we have a president prepared to sacrifice milliions of people from various nations including his own in order to mask the fact that he's doing a ****e job. On the other side of the fence there's a country run by a dictator guilty of multiple human rights breaches sticking a middle finger up at the US by co-operating as slow and as annoyingly as possible. In the middle an organisation designed to keep the peace is now falling apart because of the one-sided interests of its member states.

Overall a pretty lousy advertisment for humanity as a whole.

[Grind]

Originally posted by Sub
Ah yes, these supposed stores of weapons no one can find, and no one has any proof of. I remember them.

welp he had it ten years ago. no records showing he got rid of i t. hmmm. if we knew where they were it would be no problem to disarm. saddam had this stuff, he haas not given evidence that he has gotten rid of it, therefore, using simple logic, he must still have it.

he is refusing to

a) show us the records of getting rid of this stuff or
b) he doesn't have records and thus has the weapons.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Sub
Ah yes, these supposed stores of weapons no one can find, and no one has any proof of. I remember them.

There has always been proof he has them, that has never been the issue. The issue he is claims he destroyed them yet has no proof. What makes that bad is that EVERYTHING Iraq does is written down, they keep a written record of everty single thing they do and don't do. Therefore, if he had destroyed them, he would have very detailed records showing it, yet he has been unable to produce those records.
He has them, he has not destroyed them, he will not destroy them, and he does intend to use them in the future.
France, Germany and the other protesters are detemined to let him, better a billion dead later than risk a war now is their philosophy

[Luckeh!!!!]

imo the UN should have been dissolved with the fall of the cold war.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Nixjim
better a billion dead later than risk a war now is their philosophy

I doubt Iraq could possibly inflict a Million Casualties, let alone a Billion.

WMD's yes, but they are not that powefull in comparison to what the US/UK Nato has available.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by wu_trax
you dont need to pump that much, you only have to increase the oil production. the other opec-countries will have to follow, because they need their current revenue. its not that difficult.

Yes it is that difficult, the infrastructure in Iraq will not currently support a large increase in production, it would take well over a decade of improvements before Iraq could begin to pump enough oil to make a difference in oil production. Have a large oil researve means nothing without the means to utilize it, and I raq simply does not have the facilities in place to do so.
They are pretty well at capacity now, your scenario is impossible.
Time you re-evaluate your stance on this, you are wrong about every single idea you have.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Judge
I doubt Iraq could possibly inflict a Million Casualties, let alone a Billion.

WMD's yes, but they are not that powefull in comparison to what the US/UK Nato has available.

What part of LATER did you not understand? The US's plan is to stop him NOW, while he is still in the process of aquiring the ability, the European plan is to wait until he developes and uses them, like they did with Hitler.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Nixjim
Yes it is that difficult, the infrastructure in Iraq will not currently support a large increase in production, it would take well over a decade of improvements before Iraq could begin to pump enough oil to make a difference in oil production. Have a large oil researve means nothing without the means to utilize it, and I raq simply does not have the facilities in place to do so.
They are pretty well at capacity now, your scenario is impossible.
Time you re-evaluate your stance on this, you are wrong about every single idea you have.

oh, please, it took us less than ten years to bring an almost-stonage-country to western standards, and there was no real economical intrest back then and not much of foreign investments. and you tell me its takes longer to improove the infrastructure in iraq when there is a huge profit to make??
(on a sidenote: powell said in an interview we should pay for rebuilding iraq, are all your politicians insane ???)

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by wu_trax
oh, please, it took us less than ten years to bring an almost-stonage-country to western standards, and there was no real economical intrest back then and not much of foreign investments. and you tell me its takes longer to improove the infrastructure in iraq when there is a huge profit to make??
(on a sidenote: powell said in an interview we should pay for rebuilding iraq, are all your politicians insane ???)

Yes, that is what I'm telling you. Outdated equipment would havbe to be replaced, new wells need to be drilled, new refineries, holding tanks, transportation from the fields to be developed, not to mentiiontraining a reliable workforce you can trust not to torch the whole thing as an act of terrorism.
I didn't hear the Powell interview so I don't know just what he said, perhaps he was asking for assitance instead of wanting you to do it all? I don't know, can't believe he would say that without a reason, maybe he thinks it will "appease" Europe if they get to handle the rebuilding so they won't continue to think we just want Iraq for ourselves, which we don't.
Oil or no oil, America has no interest in contolling Iraq. We just don't want it.

[Judge]

Originally posted by Nixjim
What part of LATER did you not understand? The US's plan is to stop him NOW, while he is still in the process of aquiring the ability, the European plan is to wait until he developes and uses them, like they did with Hitler.

What part of ignorant thick twat do you not understand.

It is NOT European Policy to Wait and see.

It may well be that France Germany and Russia are attempting to sell the Rest of Europe a pup, but they are not ALL of Europe.

Britain (where I live) has exactly the same Policy as the US, or did you miss that?

Originally posted by Sandsnake
Assuming the US could gain full control of the ENTIRE Iraqi oil supply (as if that would even be REMOTELY possible), we couldn't pump enough oil to challenge OPEC. The entire blood for oil hypothesis is completely moronic. I can't even begin to comprehend how the US would pull such a coup de grace without running into a giant wall of international pressure and extremely pissed off arab nations willing to invade to reclaim their land.

The problem is sensationalist, anti-war reporters are hopping on everything they can think of, and I've yet to see one coherent argument as to exactly how such a scheme could be successfully pulled off.

I think its pretty simple. It is blood for oil.but not the way its generally presented.
The US government has decided to get rid of the Saudi regime after 9.11. they cant do that now because it would seriously hurt the world economy. They are pretending to be good friends with the saudis.
thats why Bush is desperately trying to get his hands on the iraqee oil fields. with them in his pocket he can start getting some action on the saudis. thats the Masterplan. its not really about getting profit from iraq, its about getting rid of the saudis.

Originally posted by Nixjim
What part of LATER did you not understand? The US's plan is to stop him NOW, while he is still in the process of aquiring the ability, the European plan is to wait until he developes and uses them, like they did with Hitler.

and the US plan is to threaten every single country with its WMD, use them against other nations and claim it is their moral right to disarm every other nation (the nations they have the power to) - while they continue to develop even more destructive WMD..... and hold the world further to ransom

hmmm

Zar

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Nixjim
Yes, that is what I'm telling you. Outdated equipment would havbe to be replaced, new wells need to be drilled, new refineries, holding tanks, transportation from the fields to be developed, not to mentiiontraining a reliable workforce you can trust not to torch the whole thing as an act of terrorism.

and that will take years? i doubt it. if there is a will and the money it will happen pretty fast, you will see it.

I didn't hear the Powell interview so I don't know just what he said, perhaps he was asking for assitance instead of wanting you to do it all? I don't know, can't believe he would say that without a reason, maybe he thinks it will "appease" Europe if they get to handle the rebuilding so they won't continue to think we just want Iraq for ourselves, which we don't.

yes, it certainly will appease us if we should pay for another of your wars.

Oil or no oil, America has no interest in contolling Iraq. We just don't want it.

you dont want it? maybe you should rethink your current policy then.

president bush said it would be a long, dirty road to root out terrorists and countries that supported them. i rather admire a man that is willing to do what is right despite mounting pressure to do differently. removing saddam is just one more step in the long road of defeating terrorists. the us, uk and anyone else that wants to come along has all the authority they need in 1441 and there really is no reason for a second resolution other than blair would like to have one.

to me, the sad part of all of this is how much the world is divided on this. i see this as france, russia, and germany view themselves as the immovable object and america as the unstoppable force. the problem with this is that france, russia and germany are not the immovable object but american is the unstoppable force. i just dont understand their arguments. they all claim they want iraq disarmed but they dont seem to want that to happen. if anything, the un sanctions on iraq at present are damaging france an germanys economy as they import such a large amount of oil from iraq. opening that up only helps them out. as far as russia, iraq owes them an assload of money and the only way to get it is to have oil production increased which can only happen from the removal of the sanctions. on paper france, russia, and germany stand to gain quite a bit from a us/uk war on iraq since they will be footing a relatively light load of the cost but reaping a relatively large load of the gains from sanction removal.

i think the only reason they are opposed to this war is a fear of a diminished role in world affairs. they dont have the economy or military that the us (or china) has so they feel like the last resort to being considered "equals" is to be a pain in the ass at the un. the result of this gamble is that the un could potentially lose any authority and france and russia lose the one item that gives them any power in diplomatic issues, their veto. i say could because it depends on how this war is viewed. as i said the authority is already there in 1441 so it could be seen as the us/uk enforcing that or more likely it could be seen as the us/uk have no further use for the un security council and poof there goes the power of the veto.

while i can understand that nobody wants to be someone elses lackey, espically a lackey for the us, there are serious consiquences in this game. go ask turkey in a few years when the billions of aid from the us dry up if being a 'lackey' is as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Judge
What part of ignorant thick twat do you not understand.

It is NOT European Policy to Wait and see.

It may well be that France Germany and Russia are attempting to sell the Rest of Europe a pup, but they are not ALL of Europe.

Britain (where I live) has exactly the same Policy as the US, or did you miss that?

Judge
Retired

Registered: Apr 2001
Location: Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit

What part of your location says you are in Britain.
If your to ashamed of your location to post it, don't blame others when they don't know where you are.
Ignoramous.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by wu_trax
[b]and that will take years? i doubt it. if there is a will and the money it will happen pretty fast, you will see it.
[b]
yes, it certainly will appease us if we should pay for another of your wars.

you dont want it? maybe you should rethink your current policy then.

So we spend 100 Billion on the war, another 100 billion rebuilding the country, then another 100 billion + on increraseing production, how the heck do you see that as profitable?

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by wu_trax

yes, it certainly will appease us if we should pay for another of your wars.

Powell vowed that if the United States uses force to disarm Iraq, Washington would do so quickly and play a strong post-war role in rebuilding the country and installing a civilian government.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp

AS I have stated before, WE will be rebuilding the country, your country can continue to sit back and do nothing but complain while we keep you safe, as usual.

[Not_RIT]

Of course America do not want to drill for oil in Iraq, the gains are too long term. Bush will more than likely sell the rights to drill for oil to the oil companies for a large sum of money.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Not_RIT
Of course America do not want to drill for oil in Iraq, the gains are too long term. Bush will more than likely sell the rights to drill for oil to the oil companies for a large sum of money.

They are not his to sell. The war with Iraq is being promoted as a war of Liberation. As liberators we have no oil rights,m they remain with Iraq. He has also been working hard to keep the major oil companies away from Iraq. When will you people learn we mean exactly what we say, you favor a muderous Dictators opinions over those of your ally. Pretty bad showing for you from our point of view.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Nixjim
you favor a muderous Dictators opinions over those of your ally

I don't think people care what Saddam says, it's just that Bush is a known corporate puppet who rigged the election.

[Not_RIT]

Originally posted by Nixjim
They are not his to sell. The war with Iraq is being promoted as a war of Liberation. As liberators we have no oil rights,m they remain with Iraq. He has also been working hard to keep the major oil companies away from Iraq. When will you people learn we mean exactly what we say, you favor a muderous Dictators opinions over those of your ally. Pretty bad showing for you from our point of view.

He will apoint a puppet government, this puppet government will lease the oil wells to the oil companies. The USA will be given vast war reparations. Bush will have to recoup the money somehow, why else would he attack someone whom has done bugger all to the rest of the world for the last 12 years and is quite happy to do nothing for the rest of his life.

And they emphasis on just Saddam being removed is quite a joke, a small 400 strong Delta Force Ranger led coup could do the job. But alas with only 400 soldiers in Iraq the UN could be quite pushy with what happens. With 150,000 odd what are the UN going to do? Whinge a little and then nothing.

[Emperorn]

Originally posted by Nixjim
The war with Iraq is being promoted as a war of Liberation. As liberators we have no oil rights.

Thank you for your indepth lesson in how to understand the underlying motives of global politics. If you wanted the oil, you would of course promote it as the war of Seizing Control of Iraq's oil resources.

Pfft.

First of all, I don't believe that you know what you are talking about in your posts about the state of the Iraqi oil fields and the cost of making them productive again. At least you haven't given us any facts that would suggest that you are not making everything up as you go.

But even so, it matters **** all what it would cost to get the oil fields up to peak performance again as there is more to the long-term US global strategy than instant profit. What is at stake here is the control of the global oil resources. This is the driving force behind US policy, they could not care less about "liberating" people.

M.a.r.d has a point regarding the saudis. The US cannot be on hostile terms with both Iraq and Saudi-Arabia at the same time, even though Saudi-arabia is far more fundamentalist and has closer links to Al-qaida than Iraq. Wu_trax points regarding the Opec are also valid.

Add to this the the simple politics involved, like Bush needing to keep the war on terrorism going and the tremendous prestige loss he would face if he backed down now after all this rhetoric and building up of forces and you have the true reason why there will be a war.

[Not_RIT]

Originally posted by Emperorn
Thank you for your indepth lesson in how to understand the underlying motives of global politics. If you wanted the oil, you would of course promote it as the war of Seizing Control of Iraq's oil resources.

Pfft.

First of all, I don't believe that you know what you are talking about in your posts about the state of the Iraqi oil fields and the cost of making them productive again. At least you haven't given us any facts that would suggest that you are not making everything up as you go.

But even so, it matters **** all what it would cost to get the oil fields up to peak performance again as there is more to the long-term US global strategy than instant profit. What is at stake here is the control of the global oil resources. This is the driving force behind US policy, they could not care less about "liberating" people.

M.a.r.d has a point regarding the saudis. The US cannot be on hostile terms with both Iraq and Saudi-Arabia at the same time, even though Saudi-arabia is far more fundamentalist and has closer links to Al-qaida than Iraq. Wu_trax points regarding the Opec are also valid.

Add to this the the simple politics involved, like Bush needing to keep the war on terrorism going and the tremendous prestige loss he would face if he backed down now after all this rhetoric and building up of forces and you have the true reason why there will be a war.

Not to mention that Iraq will give him a nice foot hold in the middle east for him to attack other states 'supporting' terrorism.