About the Oil afterall ?

Independent UK ^ | May 10, 2003 | David Usborne

[scriblett]

I'd appreciate your comments and thoughts on this. I still believe that the Us will not stay and take over the oil. There has to be a rebuttal to this.

----------------- America and Britain declared themselves yesterday to be the "occupying powers" in Iraq and produced a blueprint for the administration of the country that confined the United Nations to a co-ordinating role.

Although George Bush declared in Belfast last month that the UN would have "a vital role" in Iraq, there was great disappointment yesterday after the organisation was denied an operational role.

Britain acknowledged in a draft UN Security Council resolution that, with the United States, it intended to run Iraq for at least a year as a conquering power. Both countries urged the Council to agree to an instant lifting of economic sanctions against Iraq and accept that, as "occupying powers", they would have near-total control of the country's oil revenues for 12 months and maybe much longer.

Despite earlier promises that the UN should have an important role administering the delivery of humanitarian aid to the country, this

[Lunatic Fringe]

The UN is like the kid picked last for the team...

[Free_at_last_-2001]

.......UN would have "a vital role" in Iraq, there was great disappointment celebration yesterday after the organisation was denied an operational role. That's better!

[chimera]

They wanted out when it came to taking on Saddam. They're still out. They got their way. They are still free to blast hot air with their debates and meaningless resolutions, which should keep them happy. What's the beef?

[prairiebreeze]

Considering the malfeasance of the UN in administering the oil for food program, the shoddy and shadey dealings of France, Russia and who knows else in regard to the Hussein regime, and the treacherous behavior of Germany and France to the NATO allies,why in the world would any sane person think that anything associated with fiscal responsibility be handed to the weasle?

Weasles whinig again, that's all.


Prairie

[AntiGuv]

A rebuttal to what, in particular?

[ODDITHER]

THE LIBERALS WERE RIGHT, IT WAS ABOUT THE OIL.

Yes you little minded leftists, it was about the oil. It was oil that gave Sadaam the power to become one of the most evil dictators on earth. It was oil that bought the weapons of mass destruction. It was oil that bribed and blackmailed France, Canada, Germany and Russia. It was oil, that allowed the Dictator to get away with murdering his own citizens.

Now, it will be oil that pays for the reconstruction and allows the Iraqis to enjoy freedom. It will be oil that allows the American economy to become more vibriant.

It will not be oil, that keeps us in Iraq, it would be much cheaper to purchase the oil at retail prices than it would be to reconstruct Iraq. It will be preserving Freedom so that oil profits can be enjoyed by all Iraqi people.

[browardchad]

From sriblett's comment on another thread, you might just get the impression that he/she had an ulterior motive for posting this screed:

As for the oil flowing from Iraq to the U.S.A., it could be a problem. The UN controls the sales of Iraqi oil, not the US. There's no legal framework or financial system yet, if not the UN, where would the oil revenues go? Iraq has a lot of debts to pay off too, its not that easy. Your not thinking that the US should just take it are you? that would cause major, major, upheavals in the Arab world, we need to let them simmer down a bit.

Interesting.

[gcruse]

 There has to be a rebuttal to this.

If it could be easily rebutted, would they be making the claim?
And where are those WMDs anyway?  As for Saddam being
behind 9/11, where's the proof of that?  We may have to be
satisfied with the ends having justified the means, something
we abhor when it comes from the left wing, but what's a little
hypocrisy among friends?  Maybe he just did it 'cause Saddam
tried to kill Daddy.

</devil's advocacy>

[scriblett]

I would say a rebuttal is needed to the assertation that 'it really is about the oil'. The anti-USers on this site are rubbing their hands in glee, in anticipation of catching the U.S. dippping into the oil wells.

http://discuss.50plus.com/ubb/Forum46/HTML/001040.html

The U.S. has to be squeaky clean on this one, they shouldn't give the antis a leg to stand on in regards to their claims that it is all about oil.

[AntiGuv]

I would say a rebuttal is needed to the assertation that 'it really is about the oil'.

The assertion will be effectively rebutted whenever the proceeds from renewed Iraqi oil production are seen to go directly back into the reconstruction of Iraq. If that does not take place, then the assertion will not be rebutted because the assertion will not be rebuttable. Since I have every confidence that these proceeds will remain entirely retained by the Iraqi people & the Iraqi nation, I see no further rebuttal as necessary.

In brief, the rebuttal is to wait & see what happens with the proceeds of Iraqi oil sales. If the objection involves the awarding of reconstruction contracts, then one should challenge whomever advances that objection to establish that these contracts were awarded at non-competitive or exploitative financial terms. Someone must receive these contracts and 'standard' market ranges are public knowledge so far as I'm aware.

I'd say some public relations difficulties will arise if 'smoking gun' WMD evidence is not eventually forthcoming, but my crystal ball is too murky for me to say what the extent of that may be...

[Dale 1]

Did anyone else see Jacques Chirac laying a wreath last week in commemoration of VE Day? Sickening.

[dalereed]

Screw the UN!

Take the oil to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq and then take some more to pay for the cost of liberating them from evil!

We owe the UN nothing and shouldn't give them one more cent or consideration except to get out of their stinking club and kick them out of our country!