Originally posted by Jonesy
But then again those resources even if under a maniac like Saddam Hussein dont belong to USA or any of the allies. Even seeing in long term USA will keep its power over the resources…it wont be after Saddam whenever and whoever people come to Iraq USA will just give away everything.

Not suggesting that the oil belongs to anyone but the citizens of Iraq. Its certainly no more the personal property of Saddam Hussein (or his to destroy) than it is anyone elses. IMO those resources are going to be needed to rebuild Iraq into the prosperous successful, stable, arab nation that the US so desperately needs to have in theatre now Saudi is starting to come unglued.

I agree about the benifits of the Iraqis after Saddam……but would there benifits be covered during the war while seeing there fellow people die. USA killed much more people in Afghanistan than the no. killed in 9/11.

Nope. Deriving statistics from Reuters, AP wire, Agence France Presse, the BBC, and several UK broadsheets the most authoritative calculated death toll I’ve seen has been between 1000-1300 directly related to the US strikes. Less than a third that killed in 9/11 although undoubtedly still a tragically large number. Is a thousand dead Iraqi civillians too high a price to pay for the rest of them to be able to live free of persecution, censure and government organised rape and torture I don’t know and I’m not really qualified to make that determination. My personal view would be that yes it would, however I have the luxury sat here of not being able to empathise with the lot of the average Iraqi citizen.

Agreed the war will be good for the locals and right we see there eagerness to fight war just because Saddam has guns pointed on there heads….. but the ultimate output of the war, economic destruction and most of all humanitarion destruction will be very high.

Destroyed infrastructure can always be rebuilt. With the 2nd largest oil reserves on the planet under responsible and accountable control it cant be too difficult to see that there will be more than a few international corporations willing to “help” the new Iraqi government in order to get shots at rebuilding contracts.

And just for your knowledge jonesy i dont even know who John le Carre or Ian Fleming are!

They’re probably poor examples to use – both are authors that have written fairly well known spy fiction novels though. Le Carre is a bit old hat but “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” and “Smiley’s People” are kind of classics. Ian Flemings work you’ll probably be a bit more familiar with – the main character in his novels is a former RN Commander by the name of Bond………James Bond!. 😀

Not suggesting that the oil belongs to anyone but the citizens of Iraq. Its certainly no more the personal property of Saddam Hussein (or his to destroy) than it is anyone elses. IMO those resources are going to be needed to rebuild Iraq into the prosperous successful, stable, arab nation that the US so desperately needs to have in theatre now Saudi is starting to come unglued.

But at present the oil is the property of Saddam Hussein.

Destroyed infrastructure can always be rebuilt. With the 2nd largest oil reserves on the planet under responsible and accountable control it cant be too difficult to see that there will be more than a few international corporations willing to “help” the new Iraqi government in order to get shots at rebuilding contracts

I would not like to emphasise on the infrastructure…that definately can be re-built……i was emphasising upon the people who will suffer in this war.

Re: To Kabir

Originally posted by Jonesy
Hmmm dont like this new forum structure….can’t respond to sub-threads like the old one…anyone any ideas on when VB might support that as, IMO, its a big backwards step for the forum.

Kabir,

Dont tell me USA cannot get rid of Saddam by peaceful means…

I say again….how?. Assasination of Saddam Hussein has been officially sanctioned by the US govt for a while now, I think, and unoffically a process to overthrow Saddam has been kept over low heat presumably since 1991. Leastwise reports surfacing every few years of failed military coups resulting in the execution of another couple of dozen middle-ranking officers seem to insinuate that someone’s had their fingers in certain pies over the years.

The fact that, in 12 years, even with internal cooperation, no-one’s been able to get a bead on Hussein must give you some clear indication of the difficulty level of the operation you’d like brush off as the most trivial of matters. To be honest Kabir I’d stop reading John le Carre or Ian Fleming novels for a while if I were you.

Also we should count out what Bush said about creating Palestine…that was just to please Blairs opposition so that hes not in trouble. If Blair drowns USA will not have that support they have now.

I dont think you should discount the desire for Bush to hardcode his Presidency into the annals of history either. The “President that solved the Arab-Israeli conflict” does have a certain ring to it. What your saying though does have a ring of truth in it. Using Iraq as a lever to a more proactive stance over the Palestinian issue will go a long way to backing up Blair at a time when he may be glad of it. That said though the net result could be very beneficial for the ME region….would you begrudge the Israeli’s and Palestinians a chance at peace and prosperity just because Blair and Bush will gain from the reflected political glory?

The war has more to do with controlling Iraq’s huge oil reserves and other political motives

Of course the war has a strong economical dimension. It would be imprudent of any developed nation to ignore the threat to those vital resources and pulling them out from under Saddams’ control will definitely make many economists very happy. I heard on BBC radio last night that the global price of oil is now dropping on the belief that the new Iraqi War will be short, not effect oil supplies and will see a much more prosperous Iraq emerge afterwards.

Again though I’d put it to you that, as a whole, the Iraqi people (if the Kurds and Marsh Arabs can be kept in the mix – which should be largely in their interests with Saddam gone) will benefit in the long term from a change of leadership so why, even if the economic reason IS the overiding factor in the “allies” decision to go in, should the Iraqi people not benefit just because its not a morally pure reason?

__________________

Of course the war has a strong economical dimension. It would be imprudent of any developed nation to ignore the threat to those vital resources and pulling them out from under Saddams’ control will definitely make many economists very happy. I heard on BBC radio last night that the global price of oil is now dropping on the belief that the new Iraqi War will be short, not effect oil supplies and will see a much more prosperous Iraq emerge afterwards.

But then again those resources even if under a maniac like Saddam Hussein dont belong to USA or any of the allies. Even seeing in long term USA will keep its power over the resources…it wont be after Saddam whenever and whoever people come to Iraq USA will just give away everything.

Again though I’d put it to you that, as a whole, the Iraqi people (if the Kurds and Marsh Arabs can be kept in the mix – which should be largely in their interests with Saddam gone) will benefit in the long term from a change of leadership so why, even if the economic reason IS the overiding factor in the “allies” decision to go in, should the Iraqi people not benefit just because its not a morally pure reason?

I agree about the benifits of the Iraqis after Saddam……but would there benifits be covered during the war while seeing there fellow people die. USA killed much more people in Afghanistan than the no. killed in 9/11. Agreed the war will be good for the locals and right we see there eagerness to fight war just because Saddam has guns pointed on there heads….. but the ultimate output of the war, economic destruction and most of all humanitarion destruction will be very high.

And just for your knowledge jonesy i dont even kow who John le Carre or Ian Fleming are!;)

If you all want i can take the responsibility of arranging it.

Yes indeed…… i remember on my flight deck visit on Ansett B743 long back i saw the 1st officer playing some sort of game.

Maybe Saddam asks France fr asylum! 😀 😀 😀

Originally posted by Jonesy
How?

With the weight of the whole damned UN in Iraq for 7 years not being sufficient to get everything he was hanging on to how is the US meant to accomplish this task? Wave a magic wand?

They could try and turn Iraq into something like the “Truman Show” and have camera’s tuned in on every part of Iraq at all times – hmmm they may have to launch any additional 3000 or so Keyhole spysats which might be a tad tricky operationally, financially and might actually block the sun from ever reaching Iraq but hey its better than war isnt it Kabir!:) 😀

I’m not turning on you personally Kabir its just I’ve heard lots of people talking about “peaceful means” to disarm Saddam and not one single person say how it could actually be achieved and your comment that the US isnt a superpower if it cant produce and frantically wave this magic wand….well….you dont honestly mean that do you?

Regards,
Steve

OH PLEASE!

Dont tell me USA cannot get rid of Saddam by peaceful means…they have the power…they can assasinate the man easily in my oppinion…but they are hungary…they want a good control over the midle east and stop the leftist-muslim parties in the middle east…..one war many hit areas.

Jonesy yes i believe that by the wave of a magic wand they can get Saddam…..you may criticise my view point but honestly i stick by my thought. Also we should count out what Bush said about creating Palestine…that was just to please Blairs opposition so that hes not in trouble. If Blair drowns USA will not have that support they have now.

The war has more to do with controlling Iraq’s huge oil reserves and other political motives