Because Israel is Iran's target. Iran is looking to destabilize the region by making the US withdraw from Iraq beforehand. Once that is done, Iran will be in a better position to make Iraq a mess, as well as keep working on the nuclear project.Originally Posted by redche
At the end of the day, a few nukes smuggled into Israel and the US by some terrorist group would be the next step.
And your point is?
One, we have a pretty bad track record. With the benefit of hindsight, there's no question of whether the Gulf War was over oil.If you wouldn't mind explaining how the Iraqi Oil Law is stealing oil from the Iraqis, I would love to hear your particular rendition of it.
Incidentally, has it even been passed yet?
Two, the bill obliges Iraq to open its oil reserves up for 100% foreign ownership. This is special because it's freakishly atypical for a middle eastern oil state. "Dear Opec... remember the 70s? Never again." While it's beneficial for America to weaken the Oil Producing States' bargaining power, it does so at the cost of Iraq.
Three, is there seriously -any- Iraqi support for this bill? I assume there is, but I sure haven't been able to find it.
And no, it hasn't been passed yet. Every time I hear a republican Congressman 'conceding' that progress Iraq still needs to make, the fact that this law hasn't been passed is the primary illustration of lack of progress.
Basically, the Iraq oil law is shamelessly self-serving, and the fact that it's so high on the administration's agenda is telling.
Last edited by QuestionC; 04-28-2007 at 02:14 PM.
Callou collei we'll code the way
Of prime numbers and pings!
Sorry for taking so long, I tried to write a reply two times previously, and something came up each time.
I suppose that the UN has a better track record when oil is in the picture.
With the benefit of hindsight, there's no question as to whether or not the motives of the countries and UN reps opposing the Second Gulf War were about oil and money.
I'm not so sure that this is a completely bad thing to put the industry as part of the market instead of having it nationalized. In addition, I'm not so sure that American companies would necessarily be the ones that are benefiting from this. Even assuming that there is some profit for the US, I would put that down to "spoils of war".
In the long run, this might turn out to be a really good plan for all involved, including the Iraqis.
Now with that said, does anyone have the full wording of the most recent version of the bill? Wikipedia has nothing on the bill, and google results in many news articles.
From what I can tell, I think the Kurds are well pleased with it. I read an article just recently that said how they were not happy with how Saddam was using money generated by oil sales, but that isn't surprising.
This law will distribute the wealth evenly according to population to all of Iraq.
Considering how there are so many conspiracy theories about how the US is in this for the oil, I could see very well how the US government would want to lay it down in law exactly what will be done with the oil. That would finish once and for all what is to be done with it.
We'll see what happens.
Why are we sending troops to Baghdad? That isn't where the oil is. Which Gulf War are you talking about?With the benefit of hindsight, there's no question of whether the Gulf War was over oil.
I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.
The Gulf War was the war against Iraq in the early 90s in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.
That question about Baghdad sounds hopelessly facetious, but I'll entertain it...
We are in Baghdad because that's where police is most needed. We want to stabilize the region so we can install the new government.
Callou collei we'll code the way
Of prime numbers and pings!
So it's not totally about oil then? You made it sound like we're trying to stop them from killing each other. If that's not where the oil is, then why should we care?
I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.
Why we do not see the Marines in Africa where everyday is battle to survive, many people die for no reason and there are over 9.5 million refugees?
And why USA have suddenly become concerned about Darfur?
What's with the boldage?
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who cringed when reading the beginning of this sentence and those who salivated to how superior they are for understanding something as simple as binary.
I think it would be worthwhile to stabilize a place like that, but the world needs to support it universally. It can't just be the USA always going in and being the good guys, we've been getting ........ed for it lately.Why we do not see the Marines in Africa where everyday is battle to survive, many people die for no reason and there are over 9.5 million refugees?
And why USA have suddenly become concerned about Darfur?
I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.
LOL.
Your questions reworded:
1) Why is the US not concerned with Africa?
2) Why is the US becoming concerned with Africa?
Very nice. Since I would hope you have a point in there somewhere, please bring it out.
Ok, look... this is why I avoid political arguments... Everything I say you ........ers are just going to rationalize into your viewpoint, and I refuse to treat you like you don't have access to the same resources I do.
If you honestly want to understand where I'm coming from, learn the history of the Middle East over the past 30 years, especially focusing on Iran. Learn about how Hussein rose to power. Learn how "Islamo-Facist" friendly Saddam's government was. Now read about some other high-profile inhumane governments so you have some context.
If you honestly learn a meaningful lick of historical context and still believe what you do, then there's no way my limited powers will sway you.
On the other hand, if you're just committed to screaming your viewpoint without, oh I don't know... doing any actual research beyond listening to the talking heads on Cable news... then yea, there's also no way my limited powers will sway you.
You're never going to listen to my opinion, all I can realistically hope you do is get an educated opinion by educating yourself. No one who knew what he was talking about can honestly ask the question you did in the context of my reply.
Callou collei we'll code the way
Of prime numbers and pings!
Okay, so educate us. Find facts that aren't doctored from a particular viewpoint. Point us to these easy-to-find resources. We seem to be lacking completely neutral sources.
7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
QuestionC,
All I asked was why are we sending our troops to Baghdad if the conflict is totally about oil, as you have seemingly claimed. The map in the back of the Iraq Study Group Report places all major oil reserves in the most peaceful areas (to the northern and southern regions). So, I ask again, why try to pacify Baghdad in the name of oil?
Very simple, very straightforward question. I'll listen to what you have to say.
EDIT: Here, I've found some sources. These aren't directly from the back of the ISGR as my copy has been sent home.
http://vialardi.org/IRAQ/maps/oil.jpg (shows a single large oil reserve outside east baghdad)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl...oil_map355.gif (this one shows the oil fields as blobs, and shows no oil reserve near Baghdad, but only a refinery...also shows strategic pipelines)
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/meas...tory.pipes.jpg (this has nothing to do with anything)
Last edited by BobMcGee123; 05-01-2007 at 08:25 PM.
I'm not immature, I'm refined in the opposite direction.
