I thought he was called a "war criminal" who will have to "answer for all his crimes against humanity". What happened to all such lofty claims???
Just let him go and live a life of luxury in another country? Nice.
More importantly, how much would US be involved in the formation of a new government to replace Saddam? Technically, US has no business interfering in any of it. Then again, US has a hibit of gate-crashing in all matters where the big-O is a factor (O is Oil, ofcourse)
Faisal: I will bite...tell me how you think this is about oil. Tell me how US is going to benefit more from this than Russia or France re: oil. Let's get it on chanda!!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
tell me how you think this is about oil.
[/QUOTE]
What the heck are you talking about? Whats "this"? No sane person in his/her right mind thinks the proposed war on Iraq is about the moral principles of proliferation or WMD. Its about controlling the resources of that country. And that is why the offer of exile is so conveniently dangled now. After all his alleged crimes against humanity.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
What the heck are you talking about? Whats "this"? No sane person in his/her right mind thinks the proposed war on Iraq is about the moral principles of proliferation or WMD. Its about controlling the resources of that country. And that is why the offer of exile is so conveniently dangled now. After all his alleged crimes against humanity.
[/QUOTE]
Tell me faisal..why do think this is about oil. You said it. How much oil has Iraq produced in the past 11 yrs. How much is the US consumption..what has been the impact on oil prices sinc Iraqi sanctions, who has majority of the contracts on drilling, who finances most of Iraqi oil deals. Come on..tell me something..don't give me rhetoric.
You are giving an economic basis for US actions correct? Out with it!
Btw/ You can use all the help you need from the Save the Children folks. If you are willing to cut and paste, post your opinion on the economic factors of that post.
Let's put some parameters around this...
I don’t have time to copy-paste hundreds of articles and analysis written on this very subject, (and that is just the US law-makers and analysts). The issue is not what Iraq has produced in the last 11 years under the oil-for-food program, or who has the drilling contracts right now; but what its estimated reserves are, and who will control these reserves in case of a regime change in Baghdad.
Here you go.
This link is particularly useful to answer your technical questions about the oil reserves. The key question is upfront “Regime change may void all the current contracts”. The article is from MSNBC.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/IRAQOIL_Front.asp?cp1=1
A US congresswoman McKinney had the following article:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mckinney0922.html
Nightline at ABC covered this whole issue in here:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/Nightline/NTL_oil_iraq_021004.html
And Christian Science Monitor has this to say:
Faisal: tell me in own words how do you think this would transpire. Tell me which US companies are going to be rolling in the oil. WHo will settle the Lukoil and Shell contracts. What is the cost of exploration, extraction, refinement, and distribution of the oil. who benefits from the sale of oil. What will happen with BNP Paribas and Indosuez financings of the eighties and nineties.
here it is...
Russia and France have the biggest to gain from Removing Saddam. They have the largest contracts in Iraq. The most cpital investment into Iraq has been provided by French banks named above. They would love to have Saddam go, so that they can reap the ROI.
Recharging the Iraqi oil industry will cost upwards of $100 billion. Who do you think is going to provide this? let's say according to your cut and paste job and assertion that the US is going to get this windfall. It will take up to 15 yrs to explore, extract, finance, and distribute the oil before there is any return. Where is the immediate return?????
It is ofcourse naiive to think that this is not about natural resources. But if you are saying that unilateral US action is about oil, than it is quite wrong.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
Faisal: tell me in own words how do you think this would transpire. Tell me which US companies are going to be rolling in the oil. WHo will settle the Lukoil and Shell contracts. What is the cost of exploration, extraction, refinement, and distribution of the oil. who benefits from the sale of oil. What will happen with BNP Paribas and Indosuez financings of the eighties and nineties.
here it is...
Russia and France have the biggest to gain from Removing Saddam. They have the largest contracts in Iraq. The most cpital investment into Iraq has been provided by French banks named above. They would love to have Saddam go, so that they can reap the ROI.
[/QUOTE]
How that will transpire is something only time will tell. The articles I posted clearly state that there is a real possibility that in case of a US-engineered regime change in Baghdad, all the current oil contracts be cancelled. In which case, all your above assertions will become invalid. Who gets to replace Frence, Italians, Spanish and Russian companies is something to ponder about. I can bet it won't be Venezuela or Peruan companies.
Almost all reputed analysts agree that main threat to US is from terrorism and Al Qaida activities. They also agree that any cooperation between Bin Laden and Saddam is a stretch which defies logic and common sense. And most agree that the US decision at this point, to turn from a battle against terrorism and instead move into Baghdad is merely to use the world-wide anti-terrorism feeling to its long-time objective of ensuring a cheap and dependable oil supply. Analysts disagree on what will be the short term impact on oil prices. It may go up to $80/b for a month (specially bcz of concurrent situation in Venezuela). But in the mid-term US wants to diversify from its current 1.6m b/d from KSA and 800k b/d from Iraq into a larger share from a pliable Baghdad at a much better rate.
So yes, I think that the present war is not about liberating people of any country or about moral and ethical guidelines of democracy and WMD. Its about real assets. Thats why US is going soft on NK and hard on Iraq. NK has no asset of consequence. Ofcourse, GWB has convinced himself that this is about WMD and disarmament. It may be true to a tiny percentage, but the major reason is one word: Energy.
Faisal:
I am still having a hardtime seeing the correlation between US primarily benefitting from the oil cosnidering the cost of revenue form Iraqi oil is sooo high. And cosnidering that France and Russia will ebenfit the most from the removal of Saddam, why would the US engage in a costly affiar, upto $100 B as per some estimates in a military option in Iraq plus another $100B for re-furbishing the Iraqi oil industry. $200 Billion is a lot of money. More than the Marketcap off all oil companies combined. Doesn't make economic sense.
Nadia, say the sanctions are lifted and the US calls off the dogs.
Is Hussein off scott free? What prevents him from threatening humanity with WMD? Should he be allowed to continue his dangerous rule unchecked?
[quote]
*originally posted by Faisal: *
The articles I posted clearly state that there is a real possibility
Almost all reputed analysts agree
They also agree
And most agree
Analysts disagree
[/QUOTE]
These people must be sooo wise
providing asylum to saddam is not that easy. there are bunch of look alikes and the only way to be sure is to provide asylum to all of them. that could put a dent in any african economy and egypt.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
And cosnidering that France and Russia will ebenfit the most from the removal of Saddam, why would the US engage in a costly affiar
[/QUOTE]
First thing is you have based your assumption on "current" oil contracts. There is no way to tell if these contracts will be honored in case of a new regime in Baghdad. France and Russia obviously sense this thing and thus are opposing war. They want "Peace for Oil".
Hypothetically, assume Saddam is defeated or accepts exile and another Iraqi (call him Mr Al Basra) comes to power. Mr Al Basra announces that all prior oil contracts were awarded based on corruption, and the State of Iraq is cancelling all these contracts and will award them anew. Mr Al Basra deals with US companies to give them all rights to Iraqi oil (check with Thap how it works). US assures a cheaper and more reliable oil supply which is not reliant on a finicky, arrogant and very unstable House of Saud. In case of exile by Saddam, there is minimal damage to infrastructure and US-backed elements will just walk in and take over. I think that your estimates of $200b are grossly over-stated to support the argument that this is not about oil. There is no way in hell, US will spend $200b to re-build Iraq, of all the places.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Seminole: *Nadia, say the sanctions are lifted and the US calls off the dogs. Is Hussein off scott free? What prevents him from threatening *humanity with WMD? Should he be allowed to continue his dangerous rule unchecked?
[/QUOTE]
i am tempted to put this in bold so that someone can answer my next question: if there is regime change in Iraq, who will be the next President of that country? A specific name, please, of who the US will be 'democratically choosing' as the successor to Saddam Hussein. A full name would be much appreciated.
Seminole, in your scenario does it mean that the sanctions are lifted FIRST?
Sorry, but what is this 'threatening humanity with WMD'? The inspectors have been in there for a few weeks, and still nothing conclusive discovered as of yet. Sorry, but where is the armageddon-style, nuclear arsenals we were promised? A bunch of empty warheads? i am no military expert but i think weapons lose a rather significant amount of their potency once they are empty.
i say we send musharaf over there. it solves the problem for 4 countries
Faisal: Project finance doesn;t work that way. Unilateral Repulsion of contractual duties have an adverse effect on credit worthiness of a nation. Why do you think Paki debt continues to be there regardless of whether Nawaz, Bibi or Mushy. If tomorrow the mullah's take over and establish an islamic economic system and refuse to make payment on outstanding debt, pakistan would not be able to get a single dollar from any western agency, gov't or individual. There are rules set forth by the IFC regarding infra investment and contracts around Infr developmetn have to follow a certain norm.
Sure, Nadia. Assume sanctions end tomorrow. What's the solution? If you cannot come up with a solution for a peaceful end to Hussein's regime (or that it's even necessary for a change) and can't even admit that if left unchecked Hussein would pursue an active program of WMD, your arguments for the poor suffering Iraqi people do not carry weight.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Chaltahai: *
Faisal: Project finance doesn;t work that way. Unilateral Repulsion of contractual duties have an adverse effect on credit worthiness of a nation.
[/QUOTE]
I know all that. You continue to talk about the present day regulations applied in a future date.
In Iraq's case, both France and Russia fear that Iraq will unilaterally declare the present oil contracts as void ab initio, and being the ultimate beneficiary, US will provide limited overt support and full behind-the-scenes support so that international agencies do not black-list Iraq from future dealings.
As long as US is able to get its man in Baghdad, without doing too much damage to the infrastructure (Saddam goes to exile) then its a win-win for US and Saddam. Iraqi ppl do not get any benefit of oil even now, so they are almost irrelevant in this scene. They will get their food and medicine and activists will be pacified. The only real losers will be France, Russia, Italy, Spain and any other country which has direct oil contracts with the present regime of Iraq.
If you still don't get it, then I suggest you read some of the links I had provided. Far more knowledgeable people, than you and me, have written their analysis. Its not crystal ball, but sounds so logical if you see how suddenly both Rumsfield and Powell are advocating that Saddam should go in exile. It all makes sense when you look at it from a US stand-point. Its really all about personality clash and natural resources. WMD and proliferation is just a topi-drama.
Today Pakistan, India, North Korea and Israel has nukes. Tomorrow some other countries will also develop. Next day someone else. US is just fighting a losing war on proliferation front. Every sovereign country has a right to develop any weapons for its protection. US itself is sitting on the world's largest stock-pile of nukes. This whole proliferation and WMD debate just don't add up.
Sorry,do not have links for this but i remember hearing that at the end of the last gulf war,when Saddam thought the allies were going to continue on the road up to Bagdad,there was an Algerian airlines jet standing by on the airport runway.
Maybe,like most bullies,when faced with being overpowered,he turns coward and runs.I think he would let every Iraqi die for him first though,his only concern is for himself.
maybe he will go into hiding with OBL or Dick Cheney. :D
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
i am tempted to put this in bold so that someone can answer my next question: if there is regime change in Iraq, who will be the next President of that country? A specific name, please, of who the US will be 'democratically choosing' as the successor to Saddam Hussein. A full name would be much appreciated.
[/QUOTE]
Your request is highly inconsistent with your other posts. The name of the President and future legislators/representatives should be up to the Iraqi people don't you think? Removing Saddam gives them a right of self-determination that they did not previously have. Let them use it.
Regaring Afghanistan, there were probably only about 1 in a million Americans who knew anything about a Loya Jirga and most Americans probably thought a Hamid Karzai was some kind of food staple.
The post-Saddam role of the US, the EU, the UN and everyone else should be to assist the Iraqi people to redevelop a structure and framework that allows them to choose their own leaders. Given the historic differences that exist between the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shias among others, this alone will be no small feat.
The process and structure are what is important. Not the name of any particular person today who the US or anyone else would like to see assume the position of President.
The following is a 10 point summary from one of the better and more thoughtful think tanks in Washington. The report itself is well worth the read:
CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
This report recommends ten key actions that U.S. policymakers and the United
Nations must take before the conflict starts in order to maximize potential for success
in the post-conflict phase in Iraq. These recommendations draw on ongoing
work by the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project, a collaborative effort between
the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Association of the U.S.
Army, and reflect lessons learned through first-hand experience with postconflict
reconstruction efforts over the past decade.