What happens after the war?

[Luc Solar]

daring dueler, I was referring to the info in the thread I posted. You probably should read it too.

 

Here

 

I think this guy, Collounsbury, has some very accurate, objective information.

 

There has been a lot of talk about paying for the reconstruction with Iraqi oil.

 

Here's the deal: The US doesn't like Saddam, so they blow the country up. Even before the war has started, the US goverment is making contracts with US companies about reconstructing what they themselves have blown up. The money to pay for all this (approximately 900 million $ atm) comes from selling Iraqi oil.

 

This is upsetting (Iraqi) people. They feel they are getting robbed.

 

Bush acts in a way that pisses Iraqi poeple off. Even though Americans see nothing wrong with his politics and speeches, others do. And they are not cheering for you, they hate you...much more than they hate Saddam.

[Clem]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

Seriously Clem, it's really hard to take ANYTHING you say seriously, because it's all tainted by your obvious hatred of my entire country. I'm sorry we do things you don't approve ofeven though Britain is as much a part of this war as America, but yes, I suppose we should blame America and not Britain......yeah..but what would you like us to do about it? Not a single one of us is in any position to make any changes, so complaining to us will accomplish absolutely nothing except to earn you my disrespect, which you may not care about, but you've lost it nontheless.

 

right ... i will say this again

 

im not anti americans ... im anti you government ... the way it sees itself as the police of the world ... right in all cases ... im anti the propoganda your media puts out ... im anti the footprint america leaves on the world ... i know many americans an like them ... its the countries attitude as a whole i dont like ... not its people

 

and yes britain is a big part of this ... AND I DONT LIKE MY COUNTRY FOR IT EITHER!

[Breton]

I'll have to agree with Clem here. Disliking the goverment is not the same as disliking the country. And critizism is really important anyway.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

I'll have to agree with Clem here. Disliking the goverment is not the same as disliking the country. And critizism is really important anyway.

 

And Critisizing our government to people who are not even able to vote (many of us anyways) accomplishes what?

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by ET Warrior

And Critisizing our government to people who are not even able to vote (many of us anyways) accomplishes what?

it's called expressing your opinion. it doesnt have to accomplish anything it just lets people know what you think. i kinda hope it escalates to a huge war just to see bush cower

[daring dueler]

ok solar, but who are you to say that we(americans) dont see anything wrong with speeches or politics? i do see some polotic problems, im not all war, i wasnt alive in vietrnam, but the polotics of that war were messed up , i see that, so do alot of other americans.

 

as for the iraqis im sure many do hate the us, but i still dont see us taking oil , or at least that being the reason, and are you iraqi? if so ok, but if not then how the hell do you know they ALL hate us more than saddam? who you know only kills and rapes and what ever the hell else he does to thousands! and were only blowing up strtigit parts of the country, not the whole country.

[Zodiac]

I think that anti-US-sympathy goes way back to in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Remember that picture in 1983 with Rumsfeld (yeah, that same guy who is minister of defence right now) shaking hands with Saddam Hussein? Well... that was for the Iran - Iraq war.

Rumsfeld and the US told Saddam they supported him in his war (because the enemy= Iraq, of the enemy of the US = Iran, is the US's friend), and they gave him weapons and money to go kick Iran butt. But in the meanwhile Iran also received weapons from the US (because the enemy= Iran, of the enemy of the US = Iraq, is the US's friend) to go kick some Iraq butt. So basically America said: here you go, go kill eachother.

 

Both nations initially thought the US was their ally, but when they eventually found out that the US was actually backstabbing them, they got "pretty pissed" (which explains the big terrorist attacks during and after the Iran - Iraq conflict). In fact.. the American government's dirty tactic during that period is one of the biggest reasons why there's such a large anti-US-feeling in the Middle East.

They just don't trust that US-government anymore.

[Luc Solar]

Originally posted by daring dueler

ok solar, but who are you to say that we(americans) dont see anything wrong with speeches or politics?

 

Haha...you got me there.

No but seriously - it's obvious that a lot of Americans don't support the war. What annoys me is that so many still seem to be convinced that you all agree with Bush and think that "war is the only way".

 

Originally posted by daring dueler as for the iraqis im sure many do hate the us, but i still dont see us taking oil , or at least that being the reason, and are you iraqi? if so ok, but if not then how the hell do you know they ALL hate us more than saddam?

 

I don't live in Iraq, but the guy who posted in the thread I linked is working amongst Iraqi people and Arabs in general. He sais f.ex.

 

Yes, I have number of good friends in the Iraqi community. In large part they are looking forward to a post-Saddam future, but again there is little to no support among them for the war, and the manner in which it is happening they find humiliating and are very angry. My housekeeper, a Shiite told me she was happy to see Iraqis fighting back, to teach Americans a lesson.

 

One thing is clear, everyone in the Arab media is largely very proud that some Arab nation and Arab soldiers, despite being badly outmatched, are standing up and dying.

 

In short, if you know the region you know how hollow our sudden concerns ring, and how deeply hypocritical our criticisms seem. No one in this region has forgotten the CIA helped the Baath come to power and the US looked at the Baath and Sadaam as bulwarks to communism until that threat passed, and now has suddenly discovered a tender regard for the Iraqi people.

 

Where are all the pictures of cheering Iraqis who welcome American troops? Surely they would show 'em if they had any, right? I mean... the US knows that they need to show the rest of the world (UN) that they're doing the right thing. Having all that footage of happy liberated Iraqis and WOMD factories in the desert won't do much good if they keep it to themselves. I'd say that Bush has unfortunately succeeded in making the US a country that is hated world wide, not just in middle east. But he'll probably get re-elected anyway 'cause ge "kicked sum arab ass, YEEE HAW!!"

 

I also heard that the US and Brits are arguing over the Harbour (Amm-Umm Gasra or whatever)...the Brits want that the harbour to be run by Iraqis as soon as possible, whereas the US has already made a multi million $ deal about running the harbour with a certain private US company.

Neither do they agree on the post-war reconstruction issues. America wants to appoint general Franks to run the country and then have US companies (who get paid by selling Iraqi oil) rebuild it. The Brits, however, want United Nations to run the show.

[Zodiac]

Originally posted by Luc Solar

I also heard that the US and Brits are arguing over the Harbour (Amm-Umm Gasra or whatever)...the Brits want that the harbour to be run by Iraqis as soon as possible, whereas the US has already made a multi million $ deal about running the harbour with a certain private US company.

Neither do they agree on the post-war reconstruction issues. America wants to appoint general Franks to run the country and then have US companies (who get paid by selling Iraqi oil) rebuild it. The Brits, however, want United Nations to run the show.

 

It's all about the money Luc. The whole world is all about the money. Now of course, I believe Saddam being an evil man is a good reason to get rid of him, but the money (and power) is also definitely one of the reasons for this war. I am for this war, and I've heard other people who were pro-war go:"No. it's not at all about the oil or money".

no of course it isn't. it never is. .. People are so naive lol.

 

But getting money is good, because this war is costing a lot of money. It's a great idea to get that money back from the same nation the coalition is freeing (that's the best way to get it back imo, they owe us anyways). And well.. maybe the British aren't going to get as much money as the US will be getting, but that's fair right.. US has more military there.

 

And that harbor is Umm-Qasr. (well .. in dutch spelling)

[StormHammer]

Although I don't believe Oil is the sole reason for the war against Iraq, it must be a factor. Of course Saddam Hussein is a tyrannical dictator who has abused his own people for many, many years, and the regime definitely needs to change...but as an Iraqi (living in the UK, not in Iraq) interviewed on BBC news last night said...the change should have come from within Iraq. Of course, this is a bit of an erroneous comment considering the Iraqis even now, who have been offered military support, have failed to rise up to topple the regime.

 

Personally, I don't think the Iraqis on their own could have accomplished getting Saddam out of power, and simply pumping military resources into whatever rebel factions may exist would not have been enough - just look at the resistance our heavily armed and armoured troops are facing. Military action of some kind was inevitable, I suppose, in order to tackle Saddam's regime, from whatever quarter.

 

Nevertheless, to deny that oil is a motivating factor in the war conducted by the coalition forces is a little naive, IMHO. You might want to check this link, which has a brief summary about estimated oil reserves, and the main oil-producing countries.

 

You only have to look at the main Opec reserves to see that Iraq is second-in-line, with only Saudi Arabia at the top. Iraq has 110 billion barrels of oil in reserves...while the U.S. has only 23 billion. The UK doesn't even factor into the chart shown in that article.

 

At the moment, they estimate that worldwide oil reserves total around 1000 billion (1 million million) barrels. That sounds a lot...but when you factor in that we use about 70 million barrels per day, and that amount is growing exponentially - every day we use more and more - then oil reserves are not going to last forever. They estimate (in that article) that we'll be using 100 million barrels per day by 2020. I don't know if this factors in developing countries, which apparently use twice as much oil to produce each economical unit of growth, and their percentage of oil needs is increasing radically as they try to compete with 'The West'. Anyway, I'd just produced a model using Excel, using these estimates, and by my calculations Oil reserves worldwide will run out by around 2031. Keep in mind that oil isn't simply used for energy and petroleum, but it's used in a whole range of industries from cosmetics to plastics to lubricants, etc.

 

The simple fact is that the ones who control the oil will be in an extremely powerful economic position as the reserves continue to dwindle and prices increase. And make no mistake...oil prices will increase. The Opec countries combined (which are largely made up of the Middle east), hold reserves of 700 billion barrels of oil. 70% of the total world oil reserves. Is it any wonder, then, that the Middle East is at the centre of socio-economic conflict? The economic output of most countries is still centred around oil.

 

So the question about what happens after this war is even more relevant...because regardless of what happens in the short term, in the longer term many countries, not just those in the West, will be facing economic ruin, or at least serious decline, as the oil gradually runs out. While the search for renewable energy resources continues, are we seriously looking at all of the other areas in which oil is used?

 

As the U.S. dishing out contracts...well, I'm a bit disgusted by that kind of activity in light of the current situation, to be honest. How can we claim to be liberating the Iraqi people, when we will in fact be landing them with an enormous debt that has to be paid to the West, and we will be deciding which companies will be allowed to operate in certain sectors and areas? The entire notion is hypocritical and ill-advised, IMO.

 

For too long, our Western societies have largely ignored the fact that much of our success is attributed to other countries. We rely on cheap labour, cheap resources, etc., in developing or so-called 'Third world' countries, to power our hunger for materialistic things. It is these same countries that will be competing with us for those oil reserves as they continue to expand and grow.

 

I wonder what, exactly, the future holds for us all. To my mind, one thing is absolutely certain...we cannot simply blindly continue with our current consumption of resources. I expect that in a hundred years or so, we will be beating each other to death with sticks around the campfire again...

[TheCorman]

Every one is talking about the oil contracts at the end of the war but what I wan't to know is where will they go next?? The Bush seems not to soley care about the dissarment of UNPROVEN weapons of mass destruction he as well as others seem to bring other reasons for attacking Iraq. Another reason I say that is because Korea who, in the best estiments, could have a nuclear missle by the end of ths yeer when Hussein, still by the best estiments, will only have posed a major threat in three to five years. So will Bush attack other third world coutries go to Korea or even try to take Canadian oil next or what? This war was also rushed for some reason and I for one would like to know why.

 

[griff38]

Originally posted by TheCorman

So will Bush attack other third world countries

 

A distinct possibility, the Bush administration has a new doctrine that promotes going after anybody we deem a potential threat. Despite contradicting current US and international laws.

 

This war was also rushed for some reason and I for one would like to know why.

[/b]

 

 

YOU GO My Brother Man!!

[Luc Solar]

Originally posted by griff38

the Bush administration has a new doctrine that promotes going after anybody we deem a potential threat. Despite contradicting current US and international laws.

 

 

LMAO! Yeah... Despite US and international laws. That pretty much sums it up, huh?

 

What a wonderful doctrine. I sure hope that no-one else adopts that one.

 

X: "Oooh...I feel threatened! What if you decide to attack us some day??"

 

Y: "What!? We're not planning on attacking you!"

 

X: "Well... let me think about this for a moment.....hmmm....nope, I still feel threatened. I'm sorry but I must drop a gazillion tons of explosives on you and secure a X-friendly goverment.

That's the only way I'll surely feel safe. You understand, right? I must protect our freedom. "

 

Y: "You gotta be kidding me!!"

 

X: "Dear citizens of state X, on my orders our heroic forces have yet again been sent out to protect our Freedom by liberating the poor oppressed people of country Y. I can not say how long this war will last, but the outcome is certain: we will prevail. We will protect our freedom. The regime of country Y will fall."

 

Y: "No way....?"

 

X: "Ok people, you can start bidding now. First we got an excellent spot for a McDonald's right next to the Disneyland we're building in the capitol of Y.

The bidding starts at 100.000 $. Do we get 120 $? 120! 150? ..."

 

Ok, I'll stop before I get carried away.

[Kstar__2]

Originally posted by Luc Solar

Interesting times we're living... one must wait and see.

 

i can only agree with you on that:)

 

i guess america will just find a new bad guy, i heared north korea is high on their list

 

and about the weapons, they had them in the 80's, so why wouldn't they still have them now:rolleyes:

[griff38]

Originally posted by TheCorman

So will Bush attack other third world countries ?:

 

 

Powell gives warning to Iran and Syria

 

 

By Barry Schweid WASHINGTON (AP)

 

March 30, 2003

 

Secretary of State Colin Powell, ranging beyond the ongoing war with Iraq, demanded on Sunday that Iran halt its quest for weapons of mass destruction and that Syria cease supporting terrorism.

 

 

President Bush has denounced Iran as a member of an "axis of evil" along with Iraq and North Korea -- Powell said it must stop its support of terrorism against Israel and "Iran must stop its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the ability to produce them."

[StormHammer]

Originally posted by griff38

Powell gives warning to Iran and Syria

 

 

By Barry Schweid WASHINGTON (AP)

 

March 30, 2003

 

Secretary of State Colin Powell, ranging beyond the ongoing war with Iraq, demanded on Sunday that Iran halt its quest for weapons of mass destruction and that Syria cease supporting terrorism.

 

 

President Bush has denounced Iran as a member of an "axis of evil" along with Iraq and North Korea -- Powell said it must stop its support of terrorism against Israel and "Iran must stop its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the ability to produce them."

 

Why does this not surprise me?

[Luc Solar]

[sarcasm, lvl 2]

I'm confused. A few days ago When Rumsfeld went to pick up the [insert insane number] $ check, he told the senators (or whatever those guys were) that paying this huge sum is worth it, because it will end Terrorism. [/sarcasm lvl 2]

 

[sarcasm, lvl 6]

Are you trying to imply that bombing Iraq will NOT put a stop on terrorist actions? Are you saying that killing Saddam and making Iraq a protectorate of the USA will, in fact, NOT result in the global acceptance of US actions?

 

I thought all terrorists will lay down their guns and forget about their petty differences with Americans as soon as Saddam is history. [/sarcasm, lvl 6]

[daring dueler]

who said that?