1
   

Rumsfeld: 'Iraq - we have no EXIT policy'

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2005 02:34 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
...it is no longer foreign controlled.

What do you know about who controls it, how, and the future plans?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2005 03:04 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
...it is no longer foreign controlled.

What do you know about who controls it, how, and the future plans?

I know that we control the oil fields militarily. I know that the new government still has not chosen a minister of oil and that we are involved in the formation of the government and their choices of ministers. I know that the currency in Iraq right now is the US dollar. I know that we are building permanent bases in Iraq and I can guess that guarding the fields and the pipelines will continue to be priority.

Do you think that we are uninterested and staying uninvolved in the production and use of Iraqi oil?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2005 03:09 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
...it is no longer foreign controlled.

What do you know about who controls it, how, and the future plans?
...Do you think that we are uninterested and staying uninvolved in the production and use of Iraqi oil?

I think that if you want to assert that we will take over their oil, you need some knowledge and evidence. Blindly asserting motivation or intention with no evidence that it's true is one of the easiest invalid ways to argue.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2005 05:34 pm
I think that if I had asserted that we will take over their oil, you might have a point. If you re-read what I posted, I said that an argument can be made as to a motive for us to control their oil. And we do, in fact have that control now. If you disagree I 'd be more than happy to do the research for you.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2005 05:50 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
I think that if I had asserted that we will take over their oil, you might have a point. If you re-read what I posted, I said that an argument can be made as to a motive for us to control their oil. And we do, in fact have that control now. If you disagree I 'd be more than happy to do the research for you.

You asserted that Iraqi oil is "no longer foreign controlled." I would like to see some evidence that what is going on now suggests any intention other than giving the Iraqis back full decision making power about their oil, if it hasn't been done already.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2005 05:52 pm
Sure thing.

Executive order 13303.

Research it yerself.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Apr, 2005 06:22 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
I know that we control the oil fields militarily. I know that the new government still has not chosen a minister of oil and that we are involved in the formation of the government and their choices of ministers. I know that the currency in Iraq right now is the US dollar. I know that we are building permanent bases in Iraq and I can guess that guarding the fields and the pipelines will continue to be priority.

Do you think that we are uninterested and staying uninvolved in the production and use of Iraqi oil?



Well, lets see here - I draw a somewhat different conclusion from the available evidence. Looks as though there might be some sorta conflict-of-information thing goin' on:

First, there's this:

Quote:
Poll commands world press respect
Monday, 31 January, 2005, 12:02 GM
The fact that Iraq held relatively free elections against all the odds is greeted in papers across the globe with praise tempered with scepticism. There is a broad consensus that this was a flawed poll, but one which nonetheless marks something of a victory for democracy over "terror" ...


Now, lets see what else we have.

Quote:

Iraq appoints Ibrahim Bahr Al Uloum as oil minister

02-09-03

Iraq appointed former exile Ibrahim Bahr Al Uloum, son of a leading Shiite scholar, as its first post-war oil minister. The 49-year-old US-educated son of Iraqi Governing Council member Mohammed Bahr Al Uloum faces a tough task in overseeing the revival of Iraq's dilapidated and war-damaged oil sector, Baghdad's only significant revenue earner.
A political appointee based before the war in London and representing Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority, he will oversee day-to-day running of the oil ministry. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, one of the largest Shiite groups in the country, had backed Uloum for the position, Iraqis familiar with the selection process said.


Admittedly, Al Uloum is interim Oil Minister, but still, he is Oil Minister. He also is the leadin' candidate for the post within the yet-to-be-formed Cabinet.


No US petroleum firm so far has been awarded any compensatory contract by the new Iraqi Ministry of Oil. On the other hand, talks with major US and Non-US oil firms have been under way for more than a year and a half:

Quote:
Iraq Contacts European Oil Firms
Total, ENI, Royal Dutch/Shell in Development Talks
Reuters
September 29, 2003

Iraq has begun to court several European oil company investors as it seeks to spur development of the country's massive oil reserves before Washington hands over power, a senior Iraqi official said Monday.

As part of the process, new Iraqi Oil Minister Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum will insist multinationals help train Iraqi engineers -- finally freed of Saddam Hussein and more than a decade of United Nations sanctions -- to international standards. "We met a number of European companies after the OPEC meeting and invited them to present their thoughts on how to develop the oil industry of Iraq," Nabeel Musawi, a member of Iraq's OPEC delegation, told Reuters by telephone from Baghdad. An Iraqi delegation attended OPEC's Sept. 24 meeting in Vienna. "Dr. Ibrahim's idea is to get some social development projects injected into the process... and one of the main areas is training Iraqis outside Iraq."



US firms are interested in Iraqi oil development, are involved in negotiations, and the Iraqi Oil Ministry has awarded fee-for-service contracts, though none yet have gone to US firms. One US firm, Exxon/Mobil, has entered into a non-compensatory Memorandum of Cooperation, which entails no--cost technical assistance in furtherance of Iraqi Oil Ministry oil-development studies while another, Chevron/Texaco, has provided and continues to provide no-cost education and other technical assistance to Iraq's oil industry. Royal Dutch/Shell, a Non-US firm, also provides no-cost services along similar lines.

Quote:
U.S. firms seek Iraqi oil prize

January 30, 2005

By DAVID R. BAKER
San Francisco Chronicle

SAN FRANCISCO - The Iraqi government that emerges from today's election may open its oil business to foreign investment, and international petroleum companies are jockeying to curry favor with the war-torn country.

Firms from the United States and Europe - including Royal Dutch/Shell Group and ChevronTexaco - are literally working for free on certain engineering and training projects to get their feet in the door ...

... International oil companies have approached post-Hussein Iraq with caution, their hunger for new crude supplies tempered by near-daily insurgent attacks on the country's pipelines.

But the companies' ties to Iraq are growing. In the last two months, Iraq's oil ministry has signed a flurry of agreements to study the potential of some of the country's underdeveloped oil fields and train its engineers on the latest technology and techniques.

Royal Dutch/Shell Group signed an agreement with the ministry Jan. 14 to study the vast Kirkuk field, which has been producing for decades and is currently estimated to hold 8.7 billion barrels of reserves. Shell also will help draft a master plan for tapping Iraq's natural gas ...

In the last two months, Iraq's oil ministry has signed a flurry of agreements to study the potential of some of the country's underdeveloped oil fields and train its engineers on the latest technology and techniques.

Royal Dutch/Shell Group signed an agreement with the ministry Jan. 14 to study the vast Kirkuk field, which has been producing for decades and is currently estimated to hold 8.7 billion barrels of reserves. Shell also will help draft a master plan for tapping Iraq's natural gas.

Shell will do the work for free as a way to strengthen its links with the ministry, said spokesman Simon Buerk in the firm's London headquarters.

"It's our aspiration to build a relationship with the Iraqis," Buerk said. "We want to establish ourselves as a credible partner."

BP, formerly known as British Petroleum, signed a contract last week to study the Rumailah oil field near Basra. Exxon Mobil Corp. inked a memorandum of cooperation with the ministry last fall, laying groundwork to provide the ministry with technical assistance and conduct joint studies. An Iraqi-Turkish consortium won a contract in late December to help develop the Khurmala Dome oil field.

San Ramon's ChevronTexaco has been flying Iraqi oil engineers to the United States for four-week training courses since early last year. The company also helps those engineers analyze data from the Kirkuk and South Rumailah fields.

ChevronTexaco describes the program as a goodwill gesture, one that will not necessarily result in future contracts with the Iraqis. "We made it clear there will be no quid pro quo," said company spokesman Don Campbell ...

... Iraqi officials have moved slowly on opening up their oil industry to the outside world. They badly want to increase production, which supplies 95 percent of their government's revenues. Foreign cash could help.

But in the invasion's aftermath, oil is a sensitive subject. Iraqis see oil as a part of their national identity. Oil money pouring into the state budget in the 1970s - after nationalization - built schools, hospitals and highways. Many Iraqis are leery of letting foreigners own any piece of the industry ...



Here's news of an Iraqi-Oil Ministry-awarded compensatory contract that comes close to The US; it went to a firm on the North American Continent:
Quote:
Canada's OGI says wins Iraq oil field deal
Tue Apr 5, 2005 06:24 PM BST


BAGHDAD, April 5 (Reuters) - A Canadian company said on Tuesday it had won a contract to develop the Himrin oil field in northern Iraq, three months after the deal appeared to have slipped through its fingers.

Iraq's oil ministry awarded the engineering and supply tender for the 100,000 barrel a day field to OGI Group, a privately held exploration, development and oil field services company, the firm said in a statement.

The interim cabinet also approved OGI's bid, oil ministry spokesman Assem Jihad said. The deal is expected to become binding once the new government is formed, Iraqi officials said.

Shi'ite and Kurdish blocs that dominated the Jan. 30 elections have failed so far to form a cabinet but may agree on one soon.

The Calgary, Alberta-based company sealed the deal 10 days ago, Don Currie, OGI's president of international operations, told Reuters.

Besides OGI, Canada's Ivanhoe Energy (IE.TO: Quote, Profile, Research) and Ireland's Petrel Resources (PET.L: Quote, Profile, Research) were also vying for the contract.

The Himrin tender was reissued in late December after OGI had been told it won the contract.

The company said it had been in talks for more than 18 months to develop Himrin, located about 200 km (125 miles) north of Baghdad.

Violence, political uncertainty and lack of financing have delayed projects planned during the Saddam Hussein era to stop deterioration in Iraq's oil sector.

Iraq is exporting just below 1.5 million bpd, around the same level before Saddam was toppled in 2003.

In December, the government signed a $135 million contact with a Turkish-Iraqi company to develop the Khurmala Dome field in the north.

Oil ministry crews, already facing difficulty working because of lawlessness and attacks, are due to perform most of the work in Khurmala and Himrin.


Iraq has its own currency, which is both the preferred and the legal tender within the nation's economy, and is traded freely on the world market.

Quote:
A new dinar rises from the ashes
Michael Phillips in Washington and Alexei Barrionuevo in Baghdad

American authorities in Iraq announced in early July that they are preparing to create a new currency for the country - one that is free of Saddam Hussein's image. Paul Bremer, who heads the occupying authority, told Iraqis in a televised address that the move shows the US-led coalition "is determined to improve the economy of this country, and the lives of all its citizens". But the decision appears to have had a strong political component as well. Bremer has opted for a currency plan that favours the people of central Iraq, the epicentre of the increasingly violent resistance to occupation forces.
The new banknotes will look much like the pre-Gulf War national currency still circulating in the Kurdish north - bills nicknamed "Swiss dinar" because of their relative stability and strength. The Swiss dinar was trading at about 6.7 to the dollar in early July. But the new dinar will have different colours and will be worth only as much as the "Saddam dinar," which is used in the rest of the country and is worth 1,480 to the dollar. Northerners will have to buy the new dinar at a price of 150 new dinars per Swiss dinar, about a third less than the going market rate for Saddam bills. Other Iraqis will swap their Saddam dinar one-for-one for the new notes ...


Quote:
New Iraqi Currency

2002 it was trading at just below 2000 to the US dollar, and by mid-April 2003 it had slipped to anywhere between 3500 and 4000 against the dollar. In July 2003 one US dollar equaled about 1,500 Iraqi dinars. Nearly all the bank notes issued after the 1991 Gulf War were without watermark or metal line due to technical difficulties, which is why so many forgeries took place.

In April 2003, following the end of major combat operations, the Iraqi economy was in distress because of closure of oil sales, imposition of UN sanctions. At that time, United States officials said that a new currency was needed, to introduce some stability. Without a proper currency in circulation there was a fear of inflation. The US decided to distribute $20 bills to the civil servents to boost the economy. This was not an issue of "dollarizing" the economy, but to get money that had real value into people's hands.

As Brad Setser, former acting director of the US Treasury Office of International Monetary Policy, noted, "A currency that is tightly linked to the dollar would ... make it harder for the government of Iraq to manage its dependence on oil revenues. The dollar revenue from oil sales is highly volatile, so the government would have trouble paying the same dollar salary when oil is at $10 a barrel and when oil is at $30 a barrel. Rather than matching expenses and revenues by paying dollar salaries that vary in line with global oil prices, it is far easier to pay salaries in a local currency and let the value of the local currency fluctuate against the dollar."

By the end of April 2003 the economic life and conditions in Kirkuk city were becoming increasingly difficult due to the severe shortage of fuel, the increase in market prices and the non-payment of salaries to the civil servants in Kirkuk. The produce in the market had become increasingly expensive due to the significant rise in the number of people from Erbil and Sulaymaniyah who traveled to Kirkuk for shopping purposes. These shopping trips by people from the northern governorates were a result of the more attractive prices at which products were available in Kirkuk compared to the north, due to the low value of the 'new' Iraqi Dinar used in Government of Iraq [GOI] areas as against the 'old' Iraqi Dinar in use in the north.

In the long run, Washington wanted a new Iraqi government to pick its own currency, much as Afghanistan adopted a new one after the fall of the Taliban. As of May 2003 the US reportedly estimated that it was unlikely that a new government would be formed in Iraq in less than a year, and it would take at least three months after that to design a new currency. Until then, the Iraqis would have to use the various currencies floating in the market.

In June 2003 the Iraqi central bank once again began printing Dinars, with fallen leader Saddam Hussein's image on them. The 250 dinar denominated banknotes were printed by the Baghdad mint, under the supervision of the manager of the central bank. This was an effort to overcome a severe shortage of Iraqi dinars and to offset fears of counterfeit currency. The new 250-dinar bills -- worth less than US$0.20 each, were issued because of a shortage that caused a liquidity crisis in the country.

The administrator for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, Paul Bremer, outlined in an address to the Iraqi people 07 July 2003 the key spending priorities for the Iraqi national budget over the coming six months. These included commitments to improve the water, electrical, public health and telecommunications systems.

Bremer announced that the Coalition would print and distribute new banknotes for Iraq. In response to this press announcement in Baghdad, De La Rue confirmed that it was in discussions to assist in the production of banknotes for Iraq. The Company led a consortium of global currency specialists to manufacture the banknotes. De La Rue is the world 's largest commercial security printer and papermaker, involved in the production of over 150 national currencies and a wide range of security documents such as travellers cheques and vouchers. Thomas de la Rue began printing British postage stamps in 1855, and obtained the contract for all Indian postal requirements.

Banknote Corporation of America, Inc. (BCA) is the largest high security printer in the United States, with headquarters in New York City and a manufacturing plant in North Carolina. Banknote Corporation specializes in intaglio printing, producing stamps for the United States Postal Service as well as for foreign postal administrations.

American Banknote Corporation (formerly United States Banknote Corporation) is primarily concerned with the engraving and printing of corporate and government securities and other secure documents, including the production of holograms. The American Bank Note Company, the first security printing company in the United States, can trace it origin over 200 years ago to the father of security printing, Paul Revere. The American Bank Note Company traces its beginning back to 1795, with the formal creation of the American Bank Note Company in 1858. On August 8, 2003, a jury found that Morris Weissman, former chairman and CEO of American Banknote, had inflated his company's earnings in 1996 and 1997. Based on the false numbers, the 1998 public offering of the company's subsidiary, American Banknote Holographics, was a success, netting the company $115 million. When the accounting fraud was uncovered in early 1999, the spinoff's shares dropped from about $16 a share to $1.80 a share. The stock was delisted in August 1999. American Bank Note Holographics ("ABNH") is in many ways a new company today, with new management that started in 1999.

Bremer stated that the so-called "print" dinars in circulation in most of Iraq, nor the formal national currency (or "Swiss" dinar) still used in some parts of the Kurdish North were suitable for the new Iraq. "Print dinars" are poor quality, and in practice circulate widely in only two denominations -- the 250 dinar note, and the 10,000 dinar note [and no coins]. This made Saddam dinar notes very inconvenient to use. The "Swiss" dinars, while of higher quality, were so old that they are literally falling apart in people's hands. The former national ("Swiss") dinar notes were used throughout Iraq until the early 1990's, and this national currency still circulates in the Kurdish north. The bills nicknamed "Swiss dinar" either because of their relative stability and strength or because it was made in Europe, depending on the account. The Swiss dinar was trading at about 6.7 to the dollar in early July 2003.

Bremer stated that a new currency had not been designed by the United States as only a sovereign Iraqi government could take that decision. The new currency would not depict Saddam Hussein. The design for the new currency, which was not been released in advance to the public, was taken from the designs of the "Swiss" dinar, though the new notes will have different colors and denominations. The new dinars will be printed in a full range of denominations: in 50s; 250s; 1,000s; 5,000s; 10,000s; and 25,000s. The new banknotes will be much better protected against counterfeiting, they will be much more durable and suffer less "wear and tear".

The new currency would be made available to the Iraqi people on 15 October 2003. They will replace the existing Iraqi "print" dinars at parity: one new Iraqi dinar will be worth the same as one "print" dinar. The new dinar will replace the "Swiss" dinar at the rate of 150 new dinars to one Swiss dinar. These different rates reflect the different prices, expressed in local currency, in different parts of the country.

Currency can be exchanged at branches of the Rafidain and Rasheed banks, and Iraqis would have three months in which to make the exchanges. On 18 August 2003 the Central Bank of Iraq advised Iraqis to deposit all their dinars in local banks to facilitate their change into the new currency. The Bank's governor, Faleh Dawood Salman, said the UK firm charged with printing the new Iraqi money intended to ferry the first shipments to the country in a few days. "The process of changing the money has started and I call on all Iraqis to open accounts in both government and private banks and deposit the amounts they are willing to swap," Salman said. On 01 October 2003 it was disclosed that agents from the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) and the 812th Military Police Company assisted by Iraqi police and the Ministry of Finance had broken a counterfeit printing operation in Baghdad and seized counterfeit currency worth 100 billion dinars. DCIS agents and Military Police raided two locations, seized printing presses and arrested Amar Fadil Ramadan Al-Kayse, an Iraqi national who was subsequently released to Iraqi Ministry of Interior officials for prosecutorial action by the Iraqi Ministry of Justice and Courts. The investigation leading to the arrest of Al-Kayse revealed that Al-Kayse was printing and attempting to pass counterfeit 250 Iraqi dinar notes to the Central Bank of Iraq (CBI), which is funded and operated by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). Al-Kayse owned and operated the Sarmad Company for Printing, a local Baghdad printing shop and worked as editor of Nuktat Dhaw ("Spot Light"), a newspaper in Baghdad.

Stephen Cecchetti, Professor of International Economics and Finance at Brandeis University, noted in June 2003 that "Cultural legitimacy is the final and most important issue to confront in designing the new Central Bank of Iraqi. What any of foreigners write or say is irrelevant unless the people of Iraq are involved. Most importantly, we cannot go into Iraq and build a set of institutions that reflect American and Western European values. This will not work. The new Central Bank of Iraqi will belong to the Iraqis and so they have to set it up. While I might think it would be fitting to start printing new Iraqi currency with an image of King Hammurabi on it, I'm not going to use the currency."

The new currency was unveiled during a press conference in the capital of Baghdad, October 4, 2003. Iraq's new banknotes include pictures of an ancient Babylonian ruler and a 10th century mathematician in place of the face of Saddam Hussein. An ancient Islamic compass, patterned on the an Astrolabe from Baghdad dated 1131 AD, on the new Iraqi 250 dinar banknote replaced the face of Saddam Hussein on the old note. This is the same Arabic Astrolabe that was used on the ½ dinar note of the 1980s issue and the 1000 Dinar note of the 2002 issue.


[
Quote:
First day of currency swap starts smoothly
by Iraq Today Staff - 20-Oct-2003


BAGHDAD - Despite predictions of pandemonium and terror in the streets, Baghdad and most other Iraqi cities remained quiet on Wednesday as the transition to the new, Saddam-free Iraqi Dinar officially began. Threats of bombings and terror campaigns failed to materialize, and Baghdad's moneychangers began accepting the crisp new currency (see story on page 9) ...


The New Iraqi Dinar is the "Street Currency" in Iraq, having replaced even the "Swiss Dinar" which was Kurdish-controlled Northern Iraq's pre-war preferred, de facto currency. Dollars are spendable, as they are almost everywhere in the world, but they certainly are not Iraq's currency.

Meanwhile, the New Iraqi Dinar has appreciated against the dollar - and the Euro - since its adoption in October of '03.

Nope, I guess I just don't see things the way some folks seem to want to.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 04:57 pm
ehBeth wrote:
We don't have a lot of posters here who have young family members in the military.

Another forum I frequent does - the mood in that crowd, which is primarily Republican and with sons/husbands who've been told to get ready to go to Iraq, is interesting. The anti-U.S. government spewing there has become so vehement that I've put people on 'ignore'. Which is big for me.

Watching things change there in the past two years has been fascinating.

~~~~~

The spreading of democracy would be terrible? I guess if that's your opinion, timber, you can keep it.


what forum is that, ehbeth? a2k is thonly one i've been on in the last year or so and would like to see what's up on others as well.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 05:15 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Sure thing.

Executive order 13303.

Research it yerself.

Cycloptichorn

I took a look at it. It is pretty hard for a layman to understand, but I don't seen anything in there saying that we will control Iraq's oil decisions. Do you?

It looks to me like it's trying to prevent people injured by Hussein's Iraq from suing the new Iraq and thus depleting funds needed for short term rebuilding. Isn't this what we should be doing?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Apr, 2005 07:54 pm
That precisely is what the order mandates, Brandon. It reserves to The Iraqi Government sovereignty over both The Development Fund for Iraq and future petroleum-derived income, shielding them from predatory legal action.
in effect, it is an "Out of Bounds" sign pointed at US interests which would seek to derive gain from action against certain Iraqi interests.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 01:05 am
I'm assuming the Executive Order is only enforceable relative to US interests. though, is that correct?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 08:05 am
Freeduck,
You said...And it doesn't at all answer the question whether it is possible to have a truly representative government while occupied by a foreign power."

Germany has been occupied by foreign troops since 1945,and they have a representative Govt.
Japan has also been occupied by foreign troops since 1945 and guess what,they have a representative govt also.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 11:07 am
Yeah, goodfielder, it applies only to US interests. It does, however, provide basis for US lobbyin' other nations to do the same.

mysteryman - yeah, them pesky facts again Laughing

Might point out neither Japan nor Germany had wholly sovereign Post-WWII governments for many years followin' the cessation of hostilities. It even may be argued Germany did not reach that point untill the fall of Communism and German Re-unification nearly half a century after the end of the war.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 11:31 am
timberlandko wrote:
Yeah, goodfielder, it applies only to US interests. It does, however, provide basis for US lobbyin' other nations to do the same.

mysteryman - yeah, them pesky facts again Laughing

Might point out neither Japan nor Germany had wholly sovereign Post-WWII governments for many years followin' the cessation of hostilities. It even may be argued Germany did not reach that point untill the fall of Communism and German Re-unification nearly half a century after the end of the war.


Thats true,but since we still occupy Germany and Japan,then it is true that it is possible to have a truly representative government while occupied by a foreign power."
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 11:37 am
So Rumsfeld finally confessed he and Bush have no exist plan. At least they had a definite entrance plan: Shock and Awe.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 11:39 am
JLNobody wrote:
So Rumsfeld finally confessed he and Bush have no exist plan. At least they had a definite entrance plan: Shock and Awe.

What was the exit plan when we entered WW2? I guess we shouldn't have without a quick way to get our troops home.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 11:46 am
The exit plan is the same one we have had for EVERY war we have been in...WIN.
We stay till then.How hard is that to understand?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 02:05 pm
Mystery Man, you mean like Viet Nam and Korea? Oh yeah, that sure strums the strings of my patriotism.

BTW, Brandon, we did not choose to enter WWII, Pearl Harbour did that for us. But Iraq was a calculated war of choice. There an exit plan was very appropriate.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 04:08 pm
The only acceptable "Exit Plan" for a war is to get the job done and not leave one minute sooner than that has been accomplished. The job in this case was to remove Sadaam and his Ba'athist regime, and to replace tyranny with a representationally elected government able to provide for internal security and to fend for itself on the World Stage. The mission of oustin' Saddam has been accomplished; that was the easy part. We're into the heavy work now.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Apr, 2005 04:11 pm
mysteryman wrote:
The exit plan is the same one we have had for EVERY war we have been in...WIN.
We stay till then.How hard is that to understand?


Given your comments re U.S. troops still in Germany and Japan, I guess we can expect to see U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for another 50 or 60 years then. Still a shorter time frame than some have suggested, given historical results of efforts to take Baghdad.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/27/2023 at 08:15:59