0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Forums: Politics, Iraq, Us, Un
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 12:10 pm
Brand X wrote:
Quote:
But don't forget, while you are digesting that: the Americans are in Iraq to secure the oilfields and to build military bases to control the region.


I'm not saying the US doesn't have mega interest in Iraq, but don't confuse the US with the UN who was definitely there for the oil.


bafshnoogleblat!
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 12:12 pm
Quote:
the UN who was definitely there for the oil.


can you explain what you mean by this? The US was a founding member of the UN, and is a permanent member of the Security Council.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 12:13 pm
Thanks Blatham, that makes sense
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 12:15 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Perhaps the Iraqis don't want a "representative republic" forced on them. Perhaps they want to be left alone to forge their own post Saddam government in their own way. Iraqis are only fighting Americans because America has invaded and occupied their country.


"Perhaps" you are wrong!

Baathists and terrorists are fighting. These people do not constitute all Iraqies; probably not an Iraqi majority; probably not a third; probably not a quarter ... . But perhaps you have evidence to the contrary.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 12:28 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Quote:
the UN who was definitely there for the oil.


can you explain what you mean by this? The US was a founding member of the UN, and is a permanent member of the Security Council.


The US is not responsible for the administration of the UN. Members of the UN administration are alleged to have received kickbacks from Saddam in the UN Oil for Food Program along with other people in France, Germany and Russia, etc..
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 12:31 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Quote:
the UN who was definitely there for the oil.


can you explain what you mean by this? The US was a founding member of the UN, and is a permanent member of the Security Council.


I'm refering to the Oil for Food scandal where 1 billion dollars has been traced to the UN, independent investigations under way. I suspect one or more UN members were on the take.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 01:06 pm
Well I agree the kickbacks in the UN administered oil for food programme is a scandal, and so does Kofi Anan.

Ican, I might be wrong. Why not pull the troops out and find out?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 01:11 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Well I agree the kickbacks in the UN administered oil for food programme is a scandal, and so does Kofi Anan.

Ican, I might be wrong. Why not pull the troops out and find out?


What is it that pulling our troops out of Iraq will help us find out that we don't already probably know?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 01:15 pm
'cause we don't know what we don't know
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 01:20 pm
dyslexia wrote:
'cause we don't know what we don't know


I know I don't know what pulling our troops out of Iraq will help me know.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 01:25 pm
I figure there's no shortage of don't knowin' goin' on ... pretty much all around.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 01:51 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I figure there's no shortage of don't knowin' goin' on ... pretty much all around.


I stand corrected:

I bet, certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action. Get over it! Smile
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 02:01 pm
Nope, gotta hit 58000 fore we pull out ...... better fire up that draft.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 02:06 pm
Gelisgesti wrote:
Nope, gotta hit 58000 fore we pull out ...... better fire up that draft.


I bet an Iraqi plebiscite will be cheaper.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 02:08 pm
ican711nm wrote:
I think securing the Iraqi oil wells now is all about helping Iraqies finance their own recovery.


Well I think that's sadly naive, if it's meant to be taken seriously.

Securing the Iraqi oil production is about, in the short term, paying for the cost of the invasion and the "security measures". Longer term, I'd be surprised if the Iraqis got a majority share in the wealth.

Odd to note that the invasion followed shortly after the oil was priced by the Iraqis in euros, and one of the first things the occupiers did was to re-price it in dollars American.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 02:26 pm
McTag wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
I think securing the Iraqi oil wells now is all about helping Iraqies finance their own recovery.


Well I think that's sadly naive, if it's meant to be taken seriously.


I mean it to be taken seriously.

McTag wrote:
Securing the Iraqi oil production is about, in the short term, paying for the cost of the invasion and the "security measures".


In the short term, it's about paying for the securing measures (both Iraqi and US).

McTag wrote:
Longer term, I'd be surprised if the Iraqis got a majority share in the wealth.


Well then, I bet you're in for a surprise! Smile

McTag wrote:
Odd to note that the invasion followed shortly after the oil was priced by the Iraqis in euros, and one of the first things the occupiers did was to re-price it in dollars American.


What's odd about that? Since France and Germany are no longer partners with Iraqi leadership, and neither Iraq or the US are european nations, why shouldn't they switch to dollars from euros to price Iraqi oil? Generally, wouldn't a more familiar currency be preferable?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 02:31 pm
ican711nm wrote:
What's odd about that? Since France and Germany are no longer partners with Iraqi leadership, and neither Iraq or the US are european nations, why shouldn't they switch to dollars from euros to price Iraqi oil? Generally, wouldn't a more familiar currency be preferable?



Could you kindly explain the German partnership with Saddam? Thanks.

(If you need a photo of some leading US-American politican with him, there are a couple on the web!)
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 02:52 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Could you kindly explain the German partnership with Saddam? Thanks.


This partnership has been previously explained in this forum by others as well as by me.

In summary, there are two facts that form the basis of my assertion.

First, France, Germany, and Russia were reportedly invested in the form of very large loans in Saddam's Iraq and were for that reason opposed to an Iraqi regime change.

Second, People in UN administration, France, Germany, Russia, et cetera have reportedly received kickbacks from Saddam from the UN's Oil for Food Program.

None of these allegations have been specifically supported by photographs, but they are specifically supported by multiple news reports from multiple news sources. The news reports regarding the first fact began before the US invasion of Iraq.

I bet some Americans were also in on both. However, I have zero evidence to support that bet at this time.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 03:01 pm
Thanks, ican711nm, for your response.

But actually I asked you to explain/answer to:
Quote:
[Since France and]Germany are no longer partners with Iraqi leadership ...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2004 03:03 pm
www.m-w.com
Quote:
Main Entry: 2invest
Function: verb
Etymology: Italian investire to clothe, invest money, from Latin, to clothe
transitive senses
1 : to commit (money) in order to earn a financial return
2 : to make use of for future benefits or advantages
intransitive senses : to make an investment
- in·vest·able /-'ves-t&-b&l/ adjective
- in·ves·tor /-t&r/ noun


Quote:
Main Entry: part·ner·ship
Pronunciation: -"ship
Function: noun
1 : the state of being a partner : PARTICIPATION
2 a : a legal relation existing between two or more persons contractually associated as joint principals in a business b : the persons joined together in a partnership
3 : a relationship resembling a legal partnership and usually involving close cooperation between parties having specified and joint rights and responsibilities
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI
  3. » Page 109
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/23/2025 at 10:23:12
▲ ▼