Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: All
Anyone but me get the impression the UN is thinking that they are gonna be left holding the bag after the US goes in without them, and now they are scrambling to grab whatever they can? "The UN Controlling the Oil Fields" etc, instead of the Iraqi people controlling their own oil.

I'm thinking that the UN is worried that they might not be viewed in the best light ( wonder why ?) by the recently liberated people of Iraq. Hmm...wonder who the people of Iraq would be more inclined to sell their oil to, those who freed them, or those who conspired against them?

By the way, I'm not arguing this is a "war for oil" just a byproduct of liberation. Any comments?
26 posted on 03/08/2003 8:05:53 PM PST by way-right-of-center (it's easy to hide when no one is looking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: way-right-of-center
I agree 100 percent.
36 posted on 03/08/2003 8:10:04 PM PST by Howlin (Only UNamericans put the UN before America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: way-right-of-center
Anyone but me get the impression the UN is thinking that they are gonna be left holding the bag after the US goes in without them, and now they are scrambling to grab whatever they can? "The UN Controlling the Oil Fields" etc, instead of the Iraqi people controlling their own oil.

Doesn't the UN control the funds from the Iraqi oil fields now? Maybe it is time for an audit.

40 posted on 03/08/2003 8:11:50 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: way-right-of-center
interesting take, you have many of these other actors trying to get in on the act on their terms.

The US was hoping to use tha natural tendency to create the bandwagon effect for our own action. Alas, France effecively stunted that effort and created a split (other members like China and Russia would have had passive resistance to our efforts if France was with us).

But I dont see how a formalized exile offer is really different from the informal exile offers out there. Saddam just aint biting, and I am sure everything is locked down too tight for a coup right now. The interesting thing is if Pakistan is out there for "regime change" they are amenable to coming onto a 'disarm or else' resolution.
JMHO (only coin flip chance of being right!).
70 posted on 03/08/2003 8:42:51 PM PST by WOSG (Liberate Iraq!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: way-right-of-center
Please see my reply 78 for the real reason for the UN to consider this and take control of the oil fields.
86 posted on 03/08/2003 9:19:25 PM PST by TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: way-right-of-center
I believe W is setting up the UN like a bowling pin.
105 posted on 03/08/2003 10:04:43 PM PST by 185JHP ( Brisance. Puissance. Resolve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: way-right-of-center
I agree you.

The UN know that GWB is not bluffing or at least the believe he is not bluffing and that's what it's all about, like a good game of poker

As Sun Tzu states, give your enemy a way out, even at the last minute. We do not really want one allied soldier killed in the war if it can be avoided.

However the last thing I would like to see is the UN coming out as if they, the French and Germans stood up to the US and her allies and came out with the best deal.

The UN is corrupt and needs to be disbanded, they are all on Fat Cat salaries even when they are in the poorest countries of the world, driving around in 4 wheel drives, eating in the best restaurants etc. like they own the countries they are in.

Only the threat of force has brought us to this point so quickly, nothing else, and only in a matter of months.

With the UN running the show it would go on for another 11 years and who would take responsiblity for the thousands of deaths at the hands of the Iraqi state, or the possible WMD being given to any and all terrorists organisations, certainlty not the UN or the French or Germans

145 posted on 03/09/2003 5:42:46 AM PST by John_11_25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: way-right-of-center
from: From UNSCOM to UNMOVIC

"Iraq pays for UNMOVIC through oil sales via an escrow account (0.8% of oil revenues).

This allows financial control over Iraqi assets for UNMOVIC, and thus gives the United Nations another set of dentures in its dealings with Iraq.

The money from Iraqís oil sales also enables UNMOVIC to employ all of its staff, inspectors and technical experts on United Nations contracts (one-year or sixmonth duration). In so doing, 1284 deals with one of the main criticisms of UNSCOM, that staff were paid for by their governments and thus may have felt beholden to their individual governments rather than to the United Nations. This criticism was refuted by many involved in UNSCOM but the worry still persisted.

Directly employing UNSCOM staff allows the United Nations to impose its rules on employee loyalty and significantly Article 100 of the United Nations Charter, which instructs staff not to seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority and charges Member States not to seek to influence staff in the discharge of their responsibilities."

If the US liberates Iraq, the funding for UNMOVIC goes away, and so does the lifestyles of all involved. They have to go back to begging for money. That is why they do not want the situation changed. They will do everything in their power to maintain the status quo. If the sanctions are lifted as Iraq is now asking for, the same thing occurs. So they will fight for that not to happen too.

Follow the money!!

148 posted on 03/09/2003 7:43:28 AM PST by ParadigmLost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson