|
|
|
|
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 11/30/2007 7:16:50 PM | | I'm sure this might seem like an obvious question but I have yet to see a reason why america is fighting there. So tell me why. Media tells you you are defending 911 ? No but it should be only Afghanistan right ? just curious and don't give me any UN sanctions and Bush administration jargon. Just tell me why you think your children and friends are fighting a war that shouldn't exist. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 11/30/2007 7:36:01 PM | Easy. After invading Iraq for a multitude of reasons ranging from fair to excellent the Bush Administration, instead of taking a hard and firm line when they occupied Iraq, figured they had the situation in control enough to allow freedom to both the people of Iraq and the Jihadist wanna be salifist entities they are ultimately fighting in the Global War on Terror. This allowed immediate freedom of movement to terrorist, Jihadist and criminal elements before a government and security force could be established. Along with this negative side effect, the press was also included which now gave the enemy Islamists a propaganda tool to use to coerce world opinion away from their deliberate atrocious acts of barbarism against women and children, rally recruits and, make sure that America was always cast in a negative light.
In short, they screwed up the victory after they beat Saddam. That's why they were and, are still fighting there. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 11/30/2007 7:39:40 PM | | And after all that let me rephrase the question slightly okay ? what gave America the right to occupy Iraq ? That's just blatant arrogance to occupy a country that did nothing to warrant it. not to mention the propaganda that led you to believe that crap ? Oh man the arrogance ! | |
|
| |
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 11/30/2007 8:22:18 PM | The Invasion of Iraq: Dollar vs Euro
Re-denominating Iraqi oil in U. S. dollars, instead of the euro
by Sohan Sharma, Sue Tracy, & Surinder Kumar
Z magazine, February 2004
What prompted the U.S. attack on Iraq, a country under sanctions for 12 years (1991-2003), struggling to obtain clean water and basic medicines? A little discussed factor responsible for the invasion was the desire to preserve "dollar imperialism" as this hegemony began to be challenged by the euro.
After World War II, most of Europe and Japan lay economically prostrate, their industries in shambles and production, in general, at a minimum level. The U.S. was the only major power to escape the destruction of war, its industries thriving with a high level of productivity. In addition, prior to and during WWII, due to extreme political and economic upheaval, a considerable amount of gold from European countries was transferred to the U.S. Thus, after WWII the U.S. had accumulated 80 percent of the world's gold and 40 percent of the world's production. At the founding of the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1944-45, U.S. predominance was absolute. A fixed exchange currency was established based on gold, the gold-dollar standard, wherein the value of the dollar was pegged to the price of gold-U.S. $35 per ounce of gold. Because gold was combined with U.S. bank notes, the dollar note and gold became equivalent, which then became the international reserve currency.
Initially, the U.S. had $30 billion in gold reserves. But the United States spent more than $500 billion on the Vietnam War alone, from 1967-1972. During these years, the U.S. had over 110 military bases across the globe, each costing hundreds of millions of dollars a year. These expenses were paid in paper dollars and the total number given out far exceeded the gold reserve of the U.S treasury. By then (1971-72), the U.S. Treasury was running out of gold and had only $10 billion in gold left. On August 17, 1971, Nixon suspended the U.S. dollar conversion into gold. Thus, the dollar was "floated" in the international monetary market.
Also in the early 1970s, U.S. oil production peaked and its energy resources began to deplete. Its own oil production could not keep pace with growing home consumption. Since then, U.S. demand for oil continually increased, and by 2002-2003 the U.S. imported approximately 60 percent of its oil-OPEC (primarily Saudi Arabia) being the main exporter. The U.S. sought to protect its dollar strength and hegemony by ensuring that Saudi Arabia price its oil only in dollars. To achieve this, the U.S. made a deal, some say a secret one, that it would protect the Saudi regime in exchange for their selling oil only in dollars.
Throughout the late 1950s and 1960s the Arab world was in ferment over an emerging Nasser brand of Arab nationalism and the Saudi monarchy began to fear for its own stability. In Iraq, the revolutionary officers corps had taken power with a socialist program. In Libya, military officers with an Islamic socialist ideology took power in 1969 and closed the U.S. Wheelus Air base; in 1971, Libya nationalized the holdings of British Petroleum. There were proposals for uniting several Arab states-Syria, Egypt, and Libya. During 1963-1967, a civil war developed in Yemen between Republicans (anti-monarchy) and Royalist forces along almost the entire southern border of Saudi Arabia. Egyptian forces entered Yemen in support of republican forces, while the Saudis supported the royalist forces to shield its own monarchy. Eventually, the Saudi government-a medieval, Islamic fundamentalist, dynastic monarchy with absolute power-survived the nationalistic upheavals.
Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer with the largest known oil reserves, is the leader of OPEC. It is the only member of the OPEC cartel that does not have an allotted production quota. It is the "swing producer," i.e., it can increase or decrease oil production to bring oil draught or glut in the world market. This enables it more or less to determine prices.
Oil can be bought from OPEC only if you have dollars. Non-oil producing countries, such as most underdeveloped countries and Japan, first have to sell their goods to earn dollars with which they can purchase oil. If they cannot earn enough dollars, then they have to borrow dollars from the WB/IMF, which have to be paid back, with interest, in dollars. This creates a great demand for dollars outside the U.S. In contrast, the U.S. only has to print dollar bills in exchange for goods. Even for its own oil imports, the U.S. can print dollar bills without exporting or selling its goods. For instance, in 2003 the current U.S. account deficit and external debt has been running at more than $500 billion. Put in simple terms, the U.S. will receive $500 billion more in goods and services from other countries than it will provide them. The imported goods are paid by printing dollar bills, i.e., "fiat" dollars.
Fiat money or currency (usually paper money) is a type of currency whose only value is that a government made a "fiat" (decree) that the money is a legal method of exchange. Unlike commodity money, or representative money, it is not based in any other commodity such as gold or silver and is not covered by a special reserve. Fiat money is a promise to pay by the usurer and does not necessarily have any intrinsic value. Its value lies in the issuer's financial means and creditworthiness.
Such fiat dollars are invested or deposited in U.S. banks or the U.S. Treasury by most non-oil producing, underdeveloped countries to protect their currencies and generate oil credit. Today foreigners hold 48 percent of the U.S. Treasury bond market and own 24 percent of the U.S. corporate bond market and 20 percent of all U.S. corporations. In total, foreigners hold $8 trillion of U.S. assets. Nevertheless, the foreign deposited dollars strengthen the U.S. dollar and give the United States enormous power to manipulate the world economy, set rules, and prevail in the international market.
Thus, the U. S. effectively controls the world oil-market as the dollar has become the "fiat" international trading currency. Today U.S. currency accounts for approximately two-thirds of all official exchange reserves. More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all the world exports are denominated in dollars and U.S. currency accounts for about two-thirds of all official exchange reserves. The fact that billions of dollars worth of oil is priced in dollars ensures the world domination of the dollar. It allows the U.S. to act as the world's central bank, printing currency acceptable everywhere. The dollar has become an oil-backed, not gold-backed, currency.
If OPEC oil could be sold in other currencies, e.g. the euro, then U.S. economic dominance-dollar imperialism or hegemony-would be seriously challenged. More and more oil importing countries would acquire the euro as their "reserve," its value would increase, and a larger amount of trade would be transacted and denominated in euros. In such circumstances, the value of the dollar would most likely go down, some speculate between 20-40 percent.
In November 2000, Iraq began selling its oil in euros. Iraq's oil for food account at the UN was also in euros and Iraq later converted its $10 billion reserve fund at the UN to euros. Several other oil producing countries have also agreed to sell oil in euros-Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Russia, Indonesia, and Malaysia (soon to join this group). In July 2003, China announced that it would switch part of its dollar reserves into the world's emerging "reserve currency" (the euro).
On January 1, 1999, when 11 European countries formed a monetary union around this currency, Britain and Norway, the major oil producers, were absent. As the U.S. economy began to slow down during mid-2000, Western stock markets began to yield lower dividends. Investors from Gulf Cooperation Council nations lost over $800 million in the stock plunge. As investors sold U.S. assets and reinvested in Europe, which seemed to be better shielded from a recession, the euro began to gain ground against the dollar .
After September 11, 2001, Islamic financiers began to repatriate their dollar investments-amounting to billions of dollars-to Arab banks, as they were worried about the possible seizure of their assets under the USA PATRIOT Act. Also, they feared their accounts might be frozen on the suspicion that such accounts fund Islamic terrorists. Iranian sources stated that their banking colleagues felt particularly hassled as Washington heated up its war of words and threats of military intervention. This encouraged Tehran to abandon the dollar payment for oil sales and switch to the euro. Iran also moved the majority of its reserve fund to the euro. (Iran is the latest target of the U.S., which has interfered by stirring up opposition forces, and making covert threats.)
OPEC member countries and the euro-zone have strong trade links, with more than 45 percent of total merchandize imports of OPEC member countries coming from the countries of the euro-zone, while OPEC members are the main suppliers of oil and crude oil products to Europe. The EU has a bigger share of global trade than the U.S. and, while the U.S. has a huge current account deficit, the EU has a more balanced external accounts position. The EU plans to enlarge in May 2004 with ten new members. It will have a population of 450 million; it will have an oil consuming-purchasing population 33 percent larger than the U.S., and over half of OPEC crude oil will be sold to the EU as of mid-2004. In order to reduce currency risks, Europeans will pressure OPEC to trade oil in euros. Countries such as Algeria, Iran, Iraq, and Russia-which export oil and natural gas to European countries and in turn import goods and services from them-will have an interest in reducing their currency risk and hence, pricing oil and gas in euros. Thus momentum is building toward at least the dual use of euro and dollar pricing.
The unprovoked "shock and awe" attack on Iraq was to serve several economic purposes: (1) Safeguard the U.S. economy by re-denominating Iraqi oil in U.S. dollars, instead of the euro, to try to lock the world back into dollar oil trading so the U.S. would remain the dominant world power-militarily and economically. (2) Send a clear message to other oil producers as to what will happen to them if they abandon the dollar matrix. (3) Place the second largest oil reserve under direct U.S. control. (4) Create a subject state where the U.S. can maintain a huge force to dominate the Middle East and its oil. (5) Create a severe setback to the European Union and its euro, the only trading block and currency strong enough to attack U.S. dominance of the world through trade. (6) Free its forces (ultimately) so that it can begin operations against those countries that are trying to disengage themselves from U.S. dollar imperialism-such as Venezuela, where the U.S. has supported the attempted overthrow of a democratic government by a junta more friendly to U. S. business/oil interests.
The U.S. also wants to create a new oil cartel in the Middle East and Africa to replace OPEC. To this end the U.S. has been pressuring Nigeria to withdraw from OPEC and its strict production quotas by dangling the prospects of generous U.S. aid. Instead the U.S. seeks to promote a "U.S.-Nigeria Alignment," which would place Nigeria as the primary oil exporter to the U.S. Another move by the U.S. is to promote oil production in other African countries-Algeria, Libya, Egypt, and Angola, from where the U.S. imports a significant amount of oil-so that the oil control of OPEC is loosened, if not broken. Furthermore, the U.S. is pressuring non-OPEC producers to flood the oil market and retain denomination in dollars in an effort to weaken OPEC's market control and challenge the leadership of any country switching oil denomination from the dollar to the euro.
To break up OPEC and control the world's oil supply, it is also helpful to control Middle East and central Asiatic oil producing countries through which oil pipelines traverse. The first attack and occupation was of Afghanistan, October 2001, in itself a gas producing country, but primarily a country through which Central Asia and the Caspian Sea oil and gas will be shipped (piped) to energy-starved Pakistan and India. Afghanistan also provided an alternative to previously existing Russian pipelines. Simultaneously, the U.S. acquired military bases-19 of them-in the Central Asian countries of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan in the Caspian Basin, all of which are potential oil producers. After the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. controlled the natural resources of these two countries and, once again, Iraq's oil began to be traded in U.S. dollars. The UN's oil for food production program was scrapped and the U.S. Iaunched its Iraqi Assistance Fund in U.S. dollars. In December 2003, the U.S. (Pentagon) announced that it had barred French, German, and Russian oil and other companies from bidding on Iraq's reconstruction.
How would a shift to the euro affect underdeveloped countries, most of which are either non-oil producing or do not produce enough for their home consumption and development? These countries have to import oil. One of the advantages that may accrue to them is that they are likely to earn more euros than dollars since much of their trade is with the European countries. On the other hand, a shift to euro will pose a similar dilemma for them as dollars. They will have to pay for oil in euros, have enough euros deposited-invested in EU treasuries, and borrow euros if they do not have enough for their oil purchases. If, as is projected, the dollar and euro are in a price band (that is, prices will stay within an agreed upon range), they may not have much of a bargaining position.
Oil for euros would be far more helpful if oil-importing underdeveloped countries could develop some form of barter arrangement for their goods to obtain oil from OPEC. Venezuela (Chavez) has presented a successful working model of this. Following Venezuela's lead, several underdeveloped countries began bartering their undervalued commodities directly with each other in computerized swaps and counter trade deals, and commodities are now traded among these countries in exchange for Venezuela's oil. President Chavez has linked 13 such barter deals on its oil; e.g., with Cuba in exchange for Cuban doctors and paramedics who are setting up clinics in shanty towns and rural areas. Such arrangements help underdeveloped countries save their hard currencies, lessening indebtedness to international bankers, the World Bank, and IMF, so that money thus saved can be used for internal development.
Sohan Sharma is a professor emeritus at California State University in Sacramento. Sue Tracy is a hazardous waste material scientist in Sacramento. Surinder Kumar is professor of economics In Rohtak, Inala. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 11/30/2007 8:25:33 PM | | ^^ so what you are saying is you really have no idea ?^^ holy what a bunch of crap batman ! People have been dying for years now I would hope you could come up with something better to excuse it. You can't can you ? Its a made up war yet people "DIE" everyday. So far41 people who have read this can't answer this simple question and they like politics threads? | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 11/30/2007 8:45:41 PM | Triple Threat, it seems it is you that does not have a clue. That previous post has a very good answer to your question, perhaps you just weren't able to see it.
"If OPEC oil could be sold in other currencies, e.g. the euro, then U.S. economic dominance-dollar imperialism or hegemony-would be seriously challenged. More and more oil importing countries would acquire the euro as their "reserve," its value would increase, and a larger amount of trade would be transacted and denominated in euros. In such circumstances, the value of the dollar would most likely go down, some speculate between 20-40 percent."
It is obvious that since you reject this answer, you have an opinion as to what the reason is. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 11/30/2007 8:54:51 PM |
And after all that let me rephrase the question slightly okay ? what gave America the right to occupy Iraq ?
Actually, you didn't rephrase the original question. The original question was why is America fighting in Iraq and the new question is ' what gave America the right to occupy Iraq ?'
The first question is what events transpired that have the US engaged in military activities there at this point and the second, is asking who or what entity allowed them to go there to begin with and does not touch on fighting or not fighting but rather the authorization to invade which was given by the UNSC in more than a few of their poorly worded and ambiguously written resolutions.
So, which is your question, why is the US fighting there against an insurgency composed of criminals, terrorists, former regime members when at one point post invasion, with enough troops and a better mandate from Bush, they could have had the entire country under their thumb and built the Iraqi government without so much violence or, who gave them authorization to go there in the first place? | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 11/30/2007 9:19:12 PM | GhostKnight007's response seems awesome - in the simplest term - the US is in Iraq because of oil....
The version that was sold to the world didn't have anything to do with 9/11 - the US invaded Iraq because inaccurate intelligence stated that Iraq had WMD - after UN investigators found no evidence of WMD. Bush invaded in order to ensure the safety of the rest of the world by gaining control/destroying Iraq's WMD.
Iraq had no WMD - Thus the invasion/war on Iraq was illegal. All allied troops should have withdrawn and restitutions paid to Iraq. Instead the US reason for the war changed to "removing nasty evil dictator Hussein from power and saving the Iraqi's" (no country has the right to do this to another country, Iraq and Hussein were not threatening the US or elsewhere).
After Hussein was deposed, then the US reason for the war changed again, this time it is "give Iraq democracy" - obviously no country has the right to invade another nation and impose a different form of rule upon it. It is no different than China invading US to impose communist rule instead of democracy, or the Netherlands invading US to impose a monarchy instead of a democracy.
Iraq is now a mess.
this war has increased the threat of 'terrorist attacks" on the US by pissing off more people in the middle east.
Bush is the biggest WMD in the world today...
E | |
|
| |
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 11/30/2007 9:43:13 PM | Oh yeah, the Iraq thing.
Ummm, well, we were looking for weapons of mass destruction. Yeah that's it, weapons of mass destruction.
Then, since we didn't find any (ooops appears we had a bad CIA tip on that one) we decided that we might as well stay, and get rid of a "bad man" who was leading the country.
After we found him, ummmmm, it seems we decided that the Iraqies really wanted and needed us there to ummmmmmm, help them form a new government. It just appears that they are not sure how to do it, because they are too busy killing off any new leaders that they are told to elect by us.
Now we are there, to give Iraqui children candy bars, so they can pose for pictures, with our soldgers.
Oh, and also because we screwed up a bit by going over there, and we can't admit that, so now we are looking for any viable reason to be there. I don't know why Walmart just couldn't declare that country "Eminent Domain" in the first place, and saved us all the trouble. | |
|
| |
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 11/30/2007 11:00:42 PM | .
enough to allow freedom to both the people of Iraq
Please name even one us sponsored coup or insertion that resulted in a democracy?
ZIPPO! What we do best is overthrow democracies and insert dictators. 1952 iran as a GLARING example! Remember? op ajax?
they are ultimately fighting in the Global War on Terror
Well those fighting the occupation of a country bent on taking over the worlds resources hence the people of those sovereign nations have to become terrorists dont they? So yeh its definitely a Global war since the rest of the globe are the terrorists.
propaganda tool to use to coerce world opinion away from their deliberate atrocious acts of barbarism against women and children, rally recruits and, make sure that America was always cast in a negative light.
Well they dont have to spew propaganda to do that. All they have to do is tell the truth. Unless you feel some foreign country roasted and burned our kids to death in waco.
I mean hell give credit where credit is due!
. | |
|
| |
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 12/1/2007 2:26:50 AM |
The version that was sold to the world didn't have anything to do with 9/11 - the US invaded Iraq because inaccurate intelligence stated that Iraq had WMD - after UN investigators found no evidence of WMD. Bush invaded in order to ensure the safety of the rest of the world by gaining control/destroying Iraq's WMD.
So it seems to me intelligence leaned towards the US invasion being correct? Even though proved wrong?
Iraq had no WMD - Thus the invasion/war on Iraq was illegal.
Wrong. There was a mi rad of conditions from the UNSC that Iraq was in violation of ranging from WMD non compliance to human rights abuses and then going into environmental issues and repatriation of foreign nationals along with recognition of borders. WMDs was the part many concentrate on but is not the whole in the legal ceasefire agreement package.
this war has increased the threat of 'terrorist attacks" on the US by pissing off more people in the middle east.
Of course there is a point you can freeze in time when they were happy? When was it please?
Bush is the biggest WMD in the world today
With Saaudi Arabia having an over fifthy percent approval rating for Al Queda and Pakistan being possibly faced with a coup by Jihadists and them, having nuclear weapons is a minor inconvenience to you I suppose?
Please name even one us sponsored coup or insertion that resulted in a democracy?
Germany, Japan. Oops that was two without even thinking sorry.
Well those fighting the occupation of a country bent on taking over the worlds resources hence the people of those sovereign nations have to become terrorists dont they? So yeh its definitely a Global war since the rest of the globe are the terrorists.
Insurgents kill Iraqi women and children and comprise less than one percent of the population. I doubt they speak for the Iraqi people unless the Iraqi people vote for their own deaths. As for resources, most of the oil goes to Europe, some to the US and the second biggest shipments go to Asia. As for companies enjoying the headaches and profits, most are non US entities. If you need a list I can provide.
Well they dont have to spew propaganda to do that. All they have to do is tell the truth. Unless you feel some foreign country roasted and burned our kids to death in waco.
I mean hell give credit where credit is due!
Or deliberately flew planes into buildings at the peak time to inflict maximum damage against non military people? Compare numbers and motives please.
OIL and to let Israel sleep a little easier.
And Norway, Russia, Canada, Japan, Europe etc. And, since the Iraqi people have little else to sell, the Iraqi people themselves. I mean, don’t forget them. The **stards are selling oil to survive. Imagine those sons of ****es actually selling oil to make money to live off of!
What nerve, I mean, who gave them the right to sell their own oil to the west east and north in order to buy food, water, goods and such to improve their lives. God! Where is the outrage against them?
Oh! The humanity! | |
|
| |
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 12/1/2007 3:23:48 AM |
Israel is one of the worst human rights abusers around.
Why dont you invade them
Worse than Saddam Hussein?
As is Saudi Arabia.
Ohhh. Now what ceasefire agreements have they violated?
The Iraqi's seeling their oil is fine.
Teking it from them in an unjust war is another.
They are selling it at world prices and using the money to support the government and nation. So, who exactly is taking it from them? Russia, France, China, Japan? Who?
Provide stats of the 'booty' each country has raped from Iraq without paying please. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 12/1/2007 3:38:36 AM | You name it Israel has done it.
But they Run America right, so can do no wrong.
Nice spin doctoring mate lol
The ougtoing Aussie prime minister (one of Bush's staunchest allies) recently stated that the Iraq war was about about safegaurding the supply of future resources. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 12/1/2007 4:11:36 AM |
You name it Israel has done it.
But they Run America right, so can do no wrong.
Yes of course, they violated the Kuwait ceasefire agreement for fourteen years and shot at coalition aircraft as well as killed over three hundred thousand of their own people.
Nice spin doctoring mate lol
The ougtoing Aussie prime minister (one of Bush's staunchest allies) recently stated that the Iraq war was about about safegaurding the supply of future resources.
One other reason as well thank you for bringing it up as Saddam sure wasn't safeguarding them for the Iraqi people. | |
|
| |
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 12/1/2007 5:01:49 AM | Originally we were told they had WMD's.
The reasons?... well, Oil being sold in Euro's was challeging the US dollar and would create instability in the dollar, if allowed to continue.
Another reason... They needed another place to put new military bases. Saudi doesn't want them in their country anymore
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E2DA1338F935A25752C0A9649C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/L/Levin,%20Carl
So they are building some nice new ones in Iraq. Still think they will pull out of there?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/21/AR2005052100611.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11072377/
On a side note... wonder why they are making war noises at Iran now?... just google Iranian bourse... seems they also sell oil in euro's and China is one of their main customers | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 12/1/2007 7:56:26 AM |
Iraq has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq’s reserves to 200+ billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, much has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades. The Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiators hope soon to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the fabled super-giant Majnoon. But first the Parliament must pass a new oil sector investment law allowing foreign companies to assume a major role in the country. The US has threatened to withhold funding as well as financial and military support if the law does not soon pass. Although the Iraqi cabinet endorsed the draft law in July 2007, Parliament has balked at the legislation. Most Iraqis favor continued control by a national company and the powerful oil workers union strongly opposes de-nationalization. Iraq's political future is very much in flux, but oil remains the central feature of the political landscape.
US occupation authorities have assumed control of the reconstruction process and awarded lucrative contracts to US firms with direct links to the White House. Washington has also retaliated against countries opposing the war by excluding their firms from major reconstruction contracts. The occupiers have taken control of Iraq’s oil revenues, including over $6 billion in the UN’s oil-for-food account, placing the monies in a “Development Fund for Iraq.” Critics have charged that billions have disappeared from this fund and governments have called it a “black hole.” Though the UN Security Council mandated an International Advisory Monitoring Board to oversee these funds, transparency is limited, while corruption is apparently widespread. Scandals and investigations in Washington have revealed some of the sordid details.
Oil is at the heart of the crisis that leads towards a US war against Iraq. For more than a hundred years, major powers have battled to control this enormous source of wealth and strategic power. The major international oil companies, headquartered in the United States and the United Kingdom, are keen to regain control over Iraq’s oil, lost with the nationalization in 1972. Few outside the industry understand just how high the stakes in Iraq really are and how much the history of the world oil industry is a history of power, national rivalry and military force.
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.
In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".
"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.
Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US. | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 12/1/2007 8:09:55 AM | canadians should not be expected to understand why americans do anything.....
they dont understand conditions here anymore than i do conditions in sasketchewan, and i live in southeast florida.
......why we fight? we have turned the other cheek to encroaching evil islam for decades, thru scores of incidents until finally they woke us up, killing too many of our people, making the entire world unsafe.....how about burma, phillipines, darfur, places where we dont even have troops? who do you think is fomenting, sponsoring the unrest there? even bali suffered explosions.....some of us who read might remember that.
......... the business of america is business, and they have made it difficult for the free world to do business. that includes you, canada. how eager are you to pay ten dollars a gallon for gasoline? do you like going places, shopping, concerts, eating out, seeing friends? or is the canadian mass transit system so well developed that driving isnt neccessary? sure, iraq is sitting on the second largest oil reserves in the world.... im tired of hearing about the oil thing from many of you.....that is the resentful international socialist/communist line......so far we havent profited from this war, only lost money, and you are using oil too....if not, write back to this forum telling us how green you are, how you are sitting home not even using your radio, tv, telephone or computer to save energy, keeping your car in the garage, using only wood or coal to heat your house. how you dont spend money on a date to see a movie, because you are a green freak.
america is a center-right country despite the efforts of the media and the far left, who are being used by the communists/socialists ........so if you dont understand, attend an american university, preferably a private one, take some courses, and get to know the tough, bedrock kind of people we have here, people who fight out of spirit, elan, camaraderie, loyalty, so you can have the blissful luxury of being ignorant instead of being a slave.
maybe a better question is, how do the bad guys manage to amass thousands of disaffected teenagers to fight us? why arent their fighting men aged 15-25 out working, producing anything? what are they fighting for? the right to have multiple wives? the right of the mullahs to dominate the world? the right to imprison a teacher teaching so called "blasphemy"? the right to bow towards mecca and medina and pray five times a day? why is it that these questions dont seem to occur to many of you? are you women looking forward to wearing a burkha, and being "owned" by a man? are we men looking forward to being second class citizens? stripped of the right to vote? the right to own property? forced to pay a tithe to the mosque? somehow this part of the dialogue seems to be missing.....
bush is doing exactly what those of us thinking caring responsible and knowledgeable americans wanted him to do....protect us and the free world, and the economics that make it run. you liberal canadians make me laugh. you can afford to be liberal with only 22 million people on one of the worlds largest land masses, enormously rich in minerals. its too bad your spirits arent as rich as well.
| |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 12/1/2007 8:11:26 AM | The reason for the Iraq War was to bring about an end to international law by committing a blatantly illegal act in defiance of the UN thereby establishing a Pax Americana forever.
The people in the current administration had been planning it for a decade before 9/11 gave them the excuse to do so. You can read about it in Project For A New American Century.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
Richard Perle gloated about it in The Spectator on March 22, 2003.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/search/page_3/10958/united-they-fall.thtml
I recommend the book Future: Tense - The Coming World Order by Gwynne Dyer for a complete exploration of this subject.
http://www.amazon.com/Future-Tense-Gwynne-Dyer/dp/1852429178/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196525410&sr=8-1 | |
|
| Okay very simple question, why is America fighting in Iraq?
Posted: 12/1/2007 8:16:31 AM | Originally, we were told that we were going into Iraq because they had WMD's and biological weapons. This was because of our intelligence and the fact that they were not allowing UN inspectors the leeway they said they would.
There was also the argument that 9/11 was in part due to Iraq, which I still haven't seen.
The third reason was because of Hussein's human rights violations. I personally see it this way.
Was removing a mass murderer the "right" thing to do? Well, that depends on how you define the word "right." Morally, sure. Can't argue with that. Anyone who commits such atrocities should be held accountable to what they have done and anyone who had done so should face the music.
Was it the right thing to do in the grand scheme of things, especially in the Middle East? In my opinion, no. The Middle East is an extremely volatile place. Has been for thousands of years. It will continue to be for thousands of years. It's the nature of the beast. WHat does when expect from the heart of human civilization, where it all began?
Consider this. The Middle East has been offset on a three state power basis. Most recently, those three states are Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. All of them have been supported, in one way or another, by the United States in recent history, and I mean recent history as within the last thirty years. Much like a table that has three legs, you take one out, the table becomes even more unstable and is likely to fall.
Iraq under Saddam was able to keep Iran and Saudi Arabia in check.
Saudi Arabi with US support, could keep Iraq and Iran in check, especially from attacking Israel.
Iran, with their sheer numbers and religious zealots, could keep Saudi Arabi in check.
You had an almost perfect system of checks and balances. What you have now is a system where with no one banging on the door of Iran like Iraq was doing, no one to keep the nails to Iran, you have them pushing the envelope a lot more.
What we have created is a situation where we have basically three options at this point.
Option A: Immediate US withdraw. What this does though is that it creates more instability in Iraq, Al-Qaeda claims victory, we see a rise in terrorist recruitment, and quite possibly, Iraq falls to an Iranian invasion.
Option B: US partial withdraw in 5 years. Basically, we set up bases in Iraq, install a puppet government, and "rule" Iraq in that way. This is probably the most stable of options at this point.
Option C; US stays in Iraq for the next 20 years. This will give Iraq enough time to stabilize, build infrastructure, restore some semblance of order, and actually give them a chance to survive.
Also, I would implore you to look at the history of Iraq after decolonization. They have been the most stable when they are being ruled by a strong Sunni dictator, which is exactly what Saddam was. This has been a common them throughout their history.
Also, one final thought, the one thing that Bush did do by attacking Iraq that is a positive, at least in the political/national security realm, is that he diverted the terrorist attention away from the United States and put it in Iraq. At least this way, the ones who are in the most threat of injury are those who are trained for combat, not civilians.
But, back to my original point. Was Bush "right" in invading Iraq? Morally, yes. Politically/security/regionally, no.
So, why are we there now? Because we have to be there now. If we aren't there now, the terrorist can claim victory, Iraq falls, probably either into the hands of a high ranking Al-Qaeda operative or to Iran, and the region becomes even more de-stabilized, and so does the American publics perception on were our oil comes from. Granted, we are going to be at $225 a barrel by the end of 2009 anyway but that is another argument.
Personally, are there other places we should've been before we went into Iraq? In my opinion, absolutely. There is a genocide going on in Sudan, after all. Why didn't we go into Sudan if we were so concerned about human rights violations? Because they have nothing to offer us. They don't have oil, so we could really care less apparently, which is even more disgusting then I have seen.
But that is just my two cents. | |
|
|
| Page 1 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
