See, it wasn't about oil after all

DrChinese

Muse
D
Joined
Mar 7, 2003
Messages
634
There were those naysayers who said that the U.S. war on Iraq was secretly all about gaining access to Iraqi oil. Now we know that this is false. See article.

"The United States and its allies asked the U.N. Security Council on Friday to approve a resolution lifting sanctions on Iraq and giving the coalition control over the country's oil revenue following the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime."

So it wasn't about OIL, it was about oil MONEY. Big difference, I feel better already.
 
DrChinese said:
There were those naysayers who said that the U.S. war on Iraq was secretly all about gaining access to Iraqi oil. Now we know that this is false. See article.

"The United States and its allies asked the U.N. Security Council on Friday to approve a resolution lifting sanctions on Iraq and giving the coalition control over the country's oil revenue following the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime."

So it wasn't about OIL, it was about oil MONEY. Big difference, I feel better already.
Click to expand...
So do you think the sanctions should stay?
 
I suspect Dr. Chinese thinks that US and UK shouldn't be controlling oil revenues of Iraq, nor iraqi oil industry for that matter. I agree. Regardless of the actual US motives (which I am personally very suspicious of), this looks like a blatant grab for money.
 
Refresh my memory, "Dr. Chinese", but weren't you with those who used to claim that the sanctions on Iraq were part of an "imperialist plan to genocide the Iraqi people"? So now you are saying that LIFTING the sanctions is an "imperialist plan to economically control the Iraqi people" too?

Apparently, the sanctions were evil--but only as long as Saddam was in power. THEN they should have been lifted. Now that the US is in power, they should remain in place.

Essentially, your point is, "sanctions against Saddam, bad; sanctions against his enemies, good."
 
... so who SHOULD control the oil money during the interim? As the US is the de facto government at the moment, shouldn't they control it until a government is in place? Is there any other reasonable option?
 
crackmonkey

... so who SHOULD control the oil money during the interim? As the US is the de facto government at the moment, shouldn't they control it until a government is in place? Is there any other reasonable option?
Click to expand...
Sure. UN could be in control; but of course US would never go with that. And so the farce continues.
 
Skeptic said:
Refresh my memory, "Dr. Chinese", but weren't you with those who used to claim that the sanctions on Iraq were part of an "imperialist plan to genocide the Iraqi people"? So now you are saying that LIFTING the sanctions is an "imperialist plan to economically control the Iraqi people" too?

Apparently, the sanctions were evil--but only as long as Saddam was in power. THEN they should have been lifted. Now that the US is in power, they should remain in place.

Essentially, your point is, "sanctions against Saddam, bad; sanctions against his enemies, good."
Click to expand...

Sorry, you have mistaken me for someone else. (Don't worry, I get confused as to who I am most of the time anyway.)

No, I have never really taken much of a position on the sanctions because I think they did serve to prevent Saddam from funding re-armament. True, they also hurt the people of Iraq but sanctions were a reasonable compromise.
 
I guessed that some would see the UN as being a fair and impartial body in this regard. Predictably, I suppose, I must disagree.
 
Victor Danilchenko said:
crackmonkey

Sure. UN could be in control; but of course US would never go with that. And so the farce continues.
Click to expand...


Remember when the UN promised to rebuild democracy in Bosnia? Remember 7 years later when they gave up and handed the job over to the EU? How's that coming along nowadays? Bosnia fully independent yet?

Coalitions - wonderful ideas for nation-building

For what it's worth, she sides with you on letting the UN control Iraq's oil revenue, seemingly (to me) disregarding her own advice.

Here's another article that looks honestly at the problems of coalition management of Bosnia, even as it is pro-UN.

The unavoidable infighting that will be present if the UN takes control of postwar Iraq will be harmful to the Iraqis, especially considering that many member states in the UN (and members of the UNSC) see formation of a democratic Iraq as harmful to their interests.

MattJ
 
Putting the UN in control

Orgy of killing as Congo teeters on brink of genocide


Wielding machetes and rocket-launchers, hordes of tribal warriors and drug-crazed children marauded through the Congolese town of Bunia yesterday, unleashing an orgy of killing and forcing tens of thousands of terrified refugees across the Ugandan border.

United Nations officials warned the Security Council that the crisis was potentially a genocide in the making, drawing parallels with Rwanda, where between 500,000 and one million people, mainly Tutsis, were killed by Hutus in 1994.

"Bunia is on the verge of a humanitarian catastrophe," UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's spokesman, Fred Eckhard, said.

As the situation spiralled out of control, international humanitarian organisations evacuated 50 aid workers and their families from the town.

...


"We can't do anything," a peacekeeper said by telephone from the UN compound. "We do not have enough manpower. We do not have a mandate. We have sent repeated warnings that this was going to happen. We have asked for reinforcements. Every request was ignored."

South African President Thabo Mbeki is expected to ask Mr Annan this week to extend the peacekeepers' mandate to allow them to return fire if civilians come under attack.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the Congo needs soemthing other than peacekeeping.
 
I am thinking there must be someone besides the US and the UN as alternatives for managing the oil money.

Perhaps a new corporation could be formed, and shares could be given to every resident of Iraq. Then get an experienced US CEO with energy expertise to come out of retirement and safeguard the corporation during this process. That would insure that the revenue stream is not used for improper purposes.

I hear Kenneth Lay is available.
 
Victor Danilchenko said:
crackmonkey
... so who SHOULD control the oil money during the interim?
Click to expand...

Sure. UN could be in control; but of course US would never go with that. And so the farce continues.
Click to expand...

I thought that the UN *was* in control (and had been since 1996) of the Iraqi oil due to the fact the sanctions [Oil for Food] are funneled/directed/managed/whatever by the UN and currently earn the UN something like $300 million dollars a year - to cover expenses of managing the program, of course.


http://www.un.org/Depts/oip/background/index.html

Funding: The programme is funded exclusively with proceeds from Iraqi oil exports, authorised by the Security Council. In the initial stages of the programme, Iraq was permitted to sell $2 billion worth of oil every six months, with two-thirds of that amount to be used to meet Iraq’s humanitarian needs. In 1998, the limit on the level of Iraqi oil exports under the programme was raised to $5.26 billion every six months, again with two-thirds of the oil proceeds earmarked to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people. In December 1999, the ceiling on Iraqi oil exports under the programme was removed by the Security Council.

Currently, 72% of Iraqi oil export proceeds fund the humanitarian programme, of which 59% is earmarked for the contracting of supplies and equipment by the Government of Iraq for the 15 central and southern governorates and 13% for the three northern governorates, where the United Nations implements the programme on behalf of the Government of Iraq.

Included in the balance from the total oil revenues are: 25% for the Compensation Fund for war reparation payments; 2.2% for the United Nations administrative and operational costs for the programme; and 0.8% for the weapons inspection programme.

Management: The Office of the Iraq Programme is headed by the Executive Director who is responsible for the overall management and coordination of all United Nations humanitarian activities in Iraq under resolutions 661 (1990) and 986 (1995) and the procedures established by the Security Council and its Committee set up by resolution 661 (1990), as well as the Memorandum of Understanding between the United Nations and the Government of Iraq (May 1996).
Click to expand...

3% of the more than 10.52 BILLION dollars or more than 315.6 million dollars goes to the UN each year the sanctions remain in place from the sales of Iraqi oil.
 
aerocontrols said:
Putting the UN in control



Perhaps the Congo needs soemthing other than peacekeeping.
Click to expand...

Don't be stupid. The UN has only limited resources, that is, the ones it's members give it.

The troops there asking for help are from a small country. Where are the troops from the US, Britain, Australia? Too busy with more important agendas of their own.
 
a_unique_person said:


Don't be stupid. The UN has only limited resources, that is, the ones it's members give it.

The troops there asking for help are from a small country. Where are the troops from the US, Britain, Australia? Too busy with more important agendas of their own.
Click to expand...
Ah, the old "we should be everywhere or nowhere" argument. Why don't the other 189 countries on this planet get off their duffs and do something constructive?
 
WildCat said:

Ah, the old "we should be everywhere or nowhere" argument. Why don't the other 189 countries on this planet get off their duffs and do something constructive?
Click to expand...

The other 189 countries? Or do you mean states 51 through 239? We laughed when Saddam tried to take over Kuwait's oil. And now we are posed to take over Iraq's. I'm glad we're the guys in the white hats, or we'd REALLY be in trouble.
 
DrChinese said:

The other 189 countries?
Click to expand...

Uh huh, these.
DrChinese said:

Or do you mean states 51 through 239?
Click to expand...
Yes, they will soon be ours. Isn't that a black helicopter flying over your house now?! :D
DrChinese said:

We laughed when Saddam tried to take over Kuwait's oil. And now we are posed to take over Iraq's.
Click to expand...
We're poised to get Iraq's oil infrastructure up and running again. When we actually steal any of it let us know, but I'm sure you'll forget all about this silly claim when it doesn't materialize. :rolleyes:
 
Jim Lennox said:
Anybody know how much stuff was looted from the oil ministry?
Click to expand...
Nothing, the ministry was protected since Iraq desperately needs $$ to rebuild, and the surest way to get it is through oil sales. Perhaps you think the limited troops we had available should have been posted somewhere else? If so, where? Should we wait months or years for an Iraqi gov't to become functional before they are allowed to sell oil again?
 
Perhaps you think the limited troops we had available should have been posted somewhere else? If so, where? Should we wait months or years for an Iraqi gov't to become functional before they are allowed to sell oil again?
Click to expand...

Good point. Why wait for the Iraqis to sort it out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom