Guest #1 February 23, 2003 "Russia, which is owed billions of dollars by Iraq and has signed valuable contracts to develop Iraqi oilfields, says it sees no need to use force against Baghdad." The French are also owed a lot of money from Iraq and have oil-development deals. They stand to lose it all if a regime change takes place. Germany also has bills and deals. Without UN sanction, the US simply musn't act unilaterally and pre-emptively. It runs counter to everything we stand for. However, don't think those governments (France, Germany, Russia) oppose war on moral grounds."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darkvapor 0 #2 February 23, 2003 I think the US has a lot more to gain than Russia, France or Germany has to lose. I think your statement fails to show both sides of the money issue. Also, North Korea poses a much larger threat to the world, since it has publicly declared it has nuclear technology. It also has weapons which have a larger range than Iraq. However, what does the US have to gain by attacking North Korea? Not much. They have nothing that we want. No natural resources, no capital stock. Iraq is weaker in all of these respects except one, oil. Saddam poses no greater threat than North Korea, and is in fact, much weaker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #3 February 23, 2003 QuoteI think the US has a lot more to gain than Russia, France or Germany has to lose. I think your statement fails to show both sides of the money issue. Please elaborate. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darkvapor 0 #4 February 24, 2003 There are 5 primary oil companies in the world. 2 are based in the US, 2 are in the UK, and one in France. The world's larget oil company is Exxon Mobil, obviously based in the US. Some speculate that Iraq has the potential of holding 250 billion barrels of oil. Now.. if US overthrows Saddam, what will happen next? The US will call it a liberation, and a flood of western (oil) companies will be called into the region. Who gets first priority over these oil fields? Well, ofcourse the US and UK's companies. And with Exxon being so large, its going to dominate the oil fields there since it has large capital investments to make. Other countries, such as Russia (which bases Lukoil) will have a considerable size investment in Iraq, but no where near what the US and UK will have. Russia might only have 10% of the sales the US will have gained if they take over the oil fields in Iraq. Not sure if I directly answered your question, so here goes again. What happens if the US invades? The US will control the vast majority of the oil fields, and the other countries might not get any. The US wins BIG time. What happens if the US doesn't invade? The other countries might get a decent size share of the oil market, and the US will get virtually nothing since US companies don't (legally/officially) do business with Iraq. The US loses. For the rest of the world (everyone but US/UK), they stand better off if the US doesn't invade. And since Saddam isn't as big of a threat to them either, why should they support a war? Interesting thing I found from Fortune.com: But then, change is a constant in the Global 500. In 1995 the four biggest companies on the list were Japanese--Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Itochu, and Sumitomo--as were six of the top ten. Exxon, GM, and GE from the U.S. and Royal Dutch/Shell from Europe filled out the rest of the top positions. This year only one Japanese company, Toyota, makes the cut. There are three European companies (BP, Royal Dutch/Shell, and DaimlerChrysler) and six from the U.S. In a reversal of fortune, the top three positions are held by American firms--Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, and General Motors. ------ With that many oil companies in the top 10 businesses in the country and Europe, it might change your perspective of who really has the power. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #5 February 24, 2003 When you say, "unilateral", I think you must mean without French/German support. I thought the count was up to about 19 countries very much on board with this "unilateral" action. Perhaps you would be happy to have Neville Chamberlain enforcing the terms of the Gulf war cease fire agreement. He could go to Baghdad, I'm confident he would return with a promise of compliance, proclaiming, "Peace in our times". The rest of the world knew that Germany was violating the terms of the Versailles treaty. But the world crossed their fingers and hoped it would not matter, hoped Hitler's ambition was limited. Suggested reading: The Gathering Storm by Winston Churchill. This is still a world governed by the agressive use of force to achieve political objectives. Saddam has shown his willingness to use force in this manner, much of the world joined to push back. He would have been overthrown had the cease fire agreement not allowed Iraq to continue using helicopter gunships. I believe it obvious that without the real threat of military action, there would no inspections to even try to verify compliance with Saddam's agreement to disarm. In my opinion, without the real threat of military action, we should just tell Saddam that the cease fire agreement is void. Is that what you advocate? Maybe we should try the Chamberlain strategy: Ask nicely, maybe with sugar on top. How would you enforce the terms of the cease fire agreement?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #6 February 24, 2003 19?!? Where did that number come from? There's only one country on the record as going alone without the UN. It's doubtfull that even England will go without UN.__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #7 February 24, 2003 There was a joint letter signed by many countries (mostly European). Ireland was very upset that it had not been asked to sign it. Sorry, but you got it wrong. England wants to get Security Council approval, but has made it clear it is not required. If something must be done, does it somehow become not necessary if you must do it alone (which we're not).People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #8 February 24, 2003 QuoteSorry, but you got it wrong. England wants to get Security Council approval, but has made it clear it is not required. Blair is of course on the record as completely supporting a unilateral attack, however - nobody believes him. Opposition amoung the English public to a unilateral attack is huge - over 80%. It would be political suicide for Blair to move without the UN, and he knows it. Most analysts do not believe he will act without the UN. From Salon: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/13/europe/index.html QuoteWithin his own Labour Party, Tony Blair is facing potentially crippling opposition over his policy of open support for the United States. Two high-ranking officials from his government have threatened to resign if the Blair goes to war without a second U.N. resolution. Clare Short, the International Development secretary, has stated that waging war without another resolution would be unacceptable. and from the same article, written before the mast protests last week: QuoteThe major problem with the current White House gambit is that popular opposition to a U.S.-led strike against Iraq outside the aegis of a new U.N. resolution has become overwhelming in virtually all of Western Europe. In Great Britain, Spain and Italy, opposition fluctuates between 77 percent and 98 percent. Saturday's scheduled antiwar demonstrations, which observers predict will dwarf anything previously seen in Europe, are likely to provide Blair and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi with the strongest indication yet that granting unconditional support to America will likely have significant long-term political ramifications. The UK will not act without the UN unless Blair is ready for retirement. I've been wrong before, but I don't think I am this time. Mark my words. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #9 February 24, 2003 It won't be political suicide if it is very successful. If not, then those leaders will have shown real leadership Leadership should mean a whole lot more than checking out the results of a poll. Those countries are on board regardless of the "not so mass" protests.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerm 0 #10 February 24, 2003 you know.. it's satire, but it makes a lot of sense.... http://www.theonion.com/onion3905/north_korea.html Landing without injury is not necessarily evidence that you didn't fuck up... it just means you got away with it this time Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #11 February 24, 2003 Salon Magazine, Huh? You think thats a good unbiased source? A magazine which is so far left it's filing bankruptcy next month because nobody reads it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #12 February 24, 2003 It must be nice to be so willing to selectively ignore news sources. Actually, that article came off the AP wire. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #13 February 24, 2003 QuoteIt's doubtfull that even England will go without UN. So what is he going to do if the US decides to go? Is he going to say "oops........I was just kidding, I don't want to go now". If what you say is true then he is in a very bad position right now. If he pulls out right when the US goes in he will lose a tremendous amount of support by being labeled wishy washy. I really don't think he is that naive. If a war happens and it turns out well, his people will back him. If things turn out bad then they won't. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #14 February 24, 2003 QuoteI think the US has a lot more to gain than Russia, France or Germany has to lose. I think your statement fails to show both sides of the money issue. Also, North Korea poses a much larger threat to the world, since it has publicly declared it has nuclear technology. It also has weapons which have a larger range than Iraq. However, what does the US have to gain by attacking North Korea? Not much. They have nothing that we want. No natural resources, no capital stock. Iraq is weaker in all of these respects except one, oil. Saddam poses no greater threat than North Korea, and is in fact, much weaker. North Korea has a very strong neighbor and erstwhile ally that doesn't want a war on its southern border. However, China doesn't want nukes in Krazy Kim's hands either, so there is some wiggle room there."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #15 February 24, 2003 >I thought the count was up to about 19 countries very much on board >with this "unilateral" action. The US put off a vote on their latest UN resolution because they could not garner 9 of the 15 votes of the countries on the security council. So while there is support it is far from universal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #16 February 24, 2003 Tony's pretty much committed one way or another. There are 4 brigades of brit troops sitting in the sand and I don't think they'll stand up and wave the Americans off. Rather they'll go with them. I believe he's facing trouble at home because he has been repeating the US message when he should have been changing the language to suit the UK and european audiences. Subsequently there are plenty of people who don't support what he's doing as they've not been given clear reasons for it. John Prescott was asking people to trust Tony when Tony should be making the case to those with doubts, he's had more than enough experience with spin. As for what happens afterwards, I think Iraq will be a mess for a while so there'll be very little feel good factor and if you look back to GW1 Saddam is the only leader still in power. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #17 February 25, 2003 QuoteIt must be nice to be so willing to selectively ignore news sources.Quote I tend to ignore the rabid, whether it is right or left. I don't consider Salon a good sources of news. I do consider them for opinions, but take the source into consideration when judging the value of the opinion. Actually, that article came off the AP wire.Quote Then why did you post the link to Salon as a news source? The article also say it is a Salon Premium Exclusive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyMan 7 #18 February 26, 2003 QuoteThen why did you post the link to Salon as a news source? The article also say it is a Salon Premium Exclusive. Ok, then how about this one? Is Reuters on your list of "approved" news sources? (note, just to avoid confusion - even though the aritlce is hosted on Yahoo, it's actually a Reuters article. Just wanted to make that clear, lest I mislead anyone) http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=586&e=6&cid=586&u=/nm/20030226/wl_nm/iraq_blair_dc Again I reiterate my opinion, the UK will not attack Iraq without the UN. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wildblue 4 #19 February 26, 2003 ... then why don't we just withdraw all our troops, and drill in Alaska?it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,463 #20 February 26, 2003 >... then why don't we just withdraw all our troops, and drill in Alaska? What fun would that be? Where's the AMERICA AT WAR TV news specials? The chance to thumb our noses at the UN? The video of the smart bomb going down the reactor vent? (Oops, I meant building vent, I was getting confused with Star Wars again.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #21 February 26, 2003 Andy, I am not trying to give you a hard time on this but I want you to consider the difference in the writing between the Salon Magazine article and the one you posted from Reuters. Reuters article is rich with quotes from many in the British Gov't: It quotes Foreign Minister Jack Straw, Chris Smith, a former Blair Admin. official, and Labor MP George Gallaway, and Tony Blair. The salon Magazine Article quotes only one source other than the writers opinion: "For a long time, only France was proposing to use the European Union as a counterweight to the United States," says Georgetown University professor Charles Kupchan, who served as a foreign policy advisor in the Clinton administration. "Today, that idea has been adopted by virtually everyone." Why, with all the sources within the British Gov't did this writer choose some obscure Professor at G.T. Univ., who was a former Clinton Admin. official? Thats why I said what I did about Salon Mag. I never said the substance of the article wasn't true, but i think if you read the Reuters and the Salon, you will see the Salon is mainly an opinion piece in which the writer referenced one obscure source (wonder why she selected that particular one?)and the Reuters is more of a news piece. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #22 February 26, 2003 Quote >... then why don't we just withdraw all our troops, and drill in Alaska? What fun would that be? Where's the AMERICA AT WAR TV news specials? The chance to thumb our noses at the UN? The video of the smart bomb going down the reactor vent? (Oops, I meant building vent, I was getting confused with Star Wars again.) Interesting thought Bill. Since the American Left was largely responsible for preventing drilling in Anwar, and since the Hollywood left is to gain from all the coverage of the war............hmmmmm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyMan 7 #23 February 26, 2003 However, both have the same opinion. They also both point to the same argument, just in different style. I was wondering, if you're so quick to dismiss opinions you don't agree with when they come from organizations suposedly known for being on the right, rather then the left. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #24 February 26, 2003 Quote >... then why don't we just withdraw all our troops, and drill in Alaska? What fun would that be? Where's the AMERICA AT WAR TV news specials? The chance to thumb our noses at the UN? The video of the smart bomb going down the reactor vent? (Oops, I meant building vent, I was getting confused with Star Wars again.) hehehe "The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bodypilot90 0 #25 February 26, 2003 because the tree huggers wouod have a fit. And it's not about oil it's about a mad man who has killed 1.5 million of his own people that after 12 years and 18 resolutions still refuses to disarm. I say liberate Iraq now Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
AndyMan 7 #18 February 26, 2003 QuoteThen why did you post the link to Salon as a news source? The article also say it is a Salon Premium Exclusive. Ok, then how about this one? Is Reuters on your list of "approved" news sources? (note, just to avoid confusion - even though the aritlce is hosted on Yahoo, it's actually a Reuters article. Just wanted to make that clear, lest I mislead anyone) http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=586&e=6&cid=586&u=/nm/20030226/wl_nm/iraq_blair_dc Again I reiterate my opinion, the UK will not attack Iraq without the UN. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 4 #19 February 26, 2003 ... then why don't we just withdraw all our troops, and drill in Alaska?it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,463 #20 February 26, 2003 >... then why don't we just withdraw all our troops, and drill in Alaska? What fun would that be? Where's the AMERICA AT WAR TV news specials? The chance to thumb our noses at the UN? The video of the smart bomb going down the reactor vent? (Oops, I meant building vent, I was getting confused with Star Wars again.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #21 February 26, 2003 Andy, I am not trying to give you a hard time on this but I want you to consider the difference in the writing between the Salon Magazine article and the one you posted from Reuters. Reuters article is rich with quotes from many in the British Gov't: It quotes Foreign Minister Jack Straw, Chris Smith, a former Blair Admin. official, and Labor MP George Gallaway, and Tony Blair. The salon Magazine Article quotes only one source other than the writers opinion: "For a long time, only France was proposing to use the European Union as a counterweight to the United States," says Georgetown University professor Charles Kupchan, who served as a foreign policy advisor in the Clinton administration. "Today, that idea has been adopted by virtually everyone." Why, with all the sources within the British Gov't did this writer choose some obscure Professor at G.T. Univ., who was a former Clinton Admin. official? Thats why I said what I did about Salon Mag. I never said the substance of the article wasn't true, but i think if you read the Reuters and the Salon, you will see the Salon is mainly an opinion piece in which the writer referenced one obscure source (wonder why she selected that particular one?)and the Reuters is more of a news piece. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #22 February 26, 2003 Quote >... then why don't we just withdraw all our troops, and drill in Alaska? What fun would that be? Where's the AMERICA AT WAR TV news specials? The chance to thumb our noses at the UN? The video of the smart bomb going down the reactor vent? (Oops, I meant building vent, I was getting confused with Star Wars again.) Interesting thought Bill. Since the American Left was largely responsible for preventing drilling in Anwar, and since the Hollywood left is to gain from all the coverage of the war............hmmmmm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #23 February 26, 2003 However, both have the same opinion. They also both point to the same argument, just in different style. I was wondering, if you're so quick to dismiss opinions you don't agree with when they come from organizations suposedly known for being on the right, rather then the left. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #24 February 26, 2003 Quote >... then why don't we just withdraw all our troops, and drill in Alaska? What fun would that be? Where's the AMERICA AT WAR TV news specials? The chance to thumb our noses at the UN? The video of the smart bomb going down the reactor vent? (Oops, I meant building vent, I was getting confused with Star Wars again.) hehehe "The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #25 February 26, 2003 because the tree huggers wouod have a fit. And it's not about oil it's about a mad man who has killed 1.5 million of his own people that after 12 years and 18 resolutions still refuses to disarm. I say liberate Iraq now Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
