How does this work? Someone splain it to me :)

Actually Ms. Eve I think they are going to be sold on Ebay.


They are property of the Iraqis. We will probably rebuild the infrastructure of the wells, the pumping, and delivery - as well as other parts of the country. The United States will use the oil revenue to pay for this. Rumsfield already said the US Taxpayer will not be picking up the bill.

From their an eventual Iraqi REpublic will eventually take over and administrate it. I would image in the oil field revenues will be broken up to each of the states inside Iraq for each of the seperate groups - Sunnis, Kurds, Shiates, etc... that way each group does not feel left out, so they want to go to war with the other group.

Will it be difficult? VERY... might it fail? Yep. Do we have any other choices? Nope, everything else has failed in the past...

The US and UK have said that Iraqi oil will be held "in trust". Blair has said that maybe the UN could administer the oil-for-food program where Iraqi oil is traded for food and medicine. Will France veto?

The idea that there could be a civilian administrator chosen by the UN has been thrown around.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Cuz y'know, sharing the oil fields and revenue will put an end to the... oh... 10,000 years or so of tribal/religious warfare that defines the Arab culture.

This I've gotta see!

Rox, its worth trying. If not, one group will doinate the others and take all the money from oil. I really do not care if that happens, as long as the regime does not make weapons of mass destruction, support terrorism or anything else.

something I read, which sums up my posistion:

We are going to keep the oil fields and give them Big Mac and Fries in return :yowsa:

Alex ... you forgot Starbucks.

Actualy you're right, maybe we can setup few of those there as well with some wireless internet built in, that way they can browse the internet while getting some Mocha :)

Actualy you're right, maybe we can setup few of those there as well with some wireless internet built in, that way they can browse the internet while getting some Mocha :)[/b][/quote]
I wonder if Halliburton will get to implement the wireless towers, etc. since they seem to have gotten the contracts to do everything else ;)))

Mike, that's an excellent essay. Who wrote it, and where'd you find it?

This assessment is dead-on. One of the reasons I'm pessimistic about any "peace" in the Middle East is because there has been no Reformation of Islam, and in light of that, there's not much chance of success in fostering democracy as we know it. But that's not to say that I don't HOPE it could happen one day. I'm just not anticipating it happening in our lifetime, unfortunately.

Believe me, I sincerely *wish* with all my heart that the world's people could ALL live in peace -- I just don't see it happening until every nation is a secular one. Even our own. Nothing brings out the worst in people like religious fervor, and the conviction that their god's better than everyone else's. Some of the most tragic stories in world history have come about because of one group or another's religious fanaticism. We need look no further than our own American missionaries conversions of the "savages" here in the US, or in the Hawaiian Islands.

"They came to do good, and instead did well."

It's depressing. :cryin:

Actualy you're right, maybe we can setup few of those there as well with some wireless internet built in, that way they can browse the internet while getting some Mocha :)[/b][/quote]
whose going to be first to make them a porn site?!

:biglaugh:

Mike,

Saw an interview with Kissinger where he said that he thought each of those three regions should be at least temporarily autonomous and form a central government later.

------------

The idea of "nations" was pretty much enforced on that region by western powers. We westerners keep saying "Saddam gassed his OWN people" but he doesn't think of them as "his own people". We do. The Western powers that be will try and hold to the Woodrow Wilson doctrine of permanent borders though.

There is no solution that makes everyone happy. Kurds want autonomy. Turkey wants an intact Iraq. Iran wants "West Iran". Arabs want no imperialism and anything that happens will be viewed as imperialistic regardless since there is no one solution that makes everyone happy. More than one Arab thinks there is a conspiracy between the Israel and the US to make another Israel. Wanna have some fun? Let's arm the Kurds and let them claim their independence. 1948 all over again?

I'm pessimistic about "peace" anywhere. Not only pessimistic, I don't believe it's possible* There have been quite a continuum of conflicts for all historic times. With hundreds of nations and technology improving so that many of these nations may wage war across great distances, I don't see an end in sight.

It's possible that wars are a good and necessary part of being human. A Darwinian struggle between nations. The fittest survive. Continual wars between humans cause an increasing arms escalation improving the chances of defense against alien invaders (HAHA!)

A funny note. I keep hearing newscasters,etc. saying the US is trying to bring peace to the world as bombs are dropping all over Iraq. Jokers.

*OK, less than 1% chance in next 1000 years.

I don't think this will solve anything. The US is attacking Iraq and both are secular.

The Nazis were attacking all of Europe and not because of a religious view.

I don't think this will solve anything. The US is attacking Iraq and both are secular.

The Nazis were attacking all of Europe and not because of a religious view.[/b][/quote]
Excellent points. I retract my statement. :D

I don't hold much hope for world peace either. Mankind just can't seem to get past fighting and killing each other for more... more land, more possessions, more power. Apparently it's just the nature of the beast.

When you really think about it, Iraq is in an amazing position to be able to leap forward through alot of development in a hurry because of the oil they have.

Let them auction off the oil rights for a couple of areas. impose a per barrel outgoing oil tax for all exports outside of the country... Iraqi oil, like that in Saudi Arabia, is some of the cheapest in the world to extract - just about "dig a hole and get some buckets".

A one time big payment, followed by continued tax revenue would certainly go a long way to putting this country back on it's feet. More importantly, foreign investment would mean people working, cities growing, new jobs being created, etc. Suddenly you don't have 60% of the nation living on UN handouts anymore.

Iraq owns the oil - and it would be smart for them to commercialize it as quickly as possible.

The Halliburton thing peeves me quite a bit... there are better companies out there for fire fighting oil wells... but the inside edge is the inside edge, no?

Alex

Agreed.

Why tax something that you no longer own? Sounds like Liberalism at work to me...

As for Halliburton...Sorry, but they ARE the biggest, the best, and probably offered the lowest bid. Remember, Red Adair retired after the Gulf War (He should have. He's older than me, LOL!).

This just in from the Houston Chronicle (with a great number of tears...they're a Lib rag):

Halliburton is not in the running for Iraq...because of their former relationship with Cheney. Integrity!

Excellent points. I retract my statement. :D

I don't hold much hope for world peace either. Mankind just can't seem to get past fighting and killing each other for more... more land, more possessions, more power. Apparently it's just the nature of the beast.[/b][/quote]
was there EVER a time when the world was entirely at peace?

was there EVER a time when the world was entirely at peace?[/b][/quote]
Doubtful. I read a study that showed the "death by human" rate was higher in tribal societies than in nations. The study pointed out that if the entire wold was tribal during WW II, even more people would have died.

Maybe because a smaller percentage of people go to war in "civilized societies"?

See Rwanda, Zaire, etc.

Can't find the book right now for definition of "tribal", etc.

Ermm...why would Iraq NOT own the oil post-war?

:blink:

Update on Halliburton Contracts etc

Tidbits:

1. Halliburton out of the running for "rebuild Iraq" contract.
2. Second-largest oilfield services firm in the world
3. Was awarded contracts last week to put out oil well fires in Iraq.

Ermm...why would Iraq NOT own the oil post-war?

:blink:[/b][/quote]
Sorry! I guess that post wasn't clear enough...
What they would be taxing that they would not own is the oil that they had already sold.

"Let them auction off the oil rights for a couple of areas. impose a per barrel outgoing oil tax for all exports outside of the country... Iraqi oil, like that in Saudi Arabia, is some of the cheapest in the world to extract - just about "dig a hole and get some buckets"."



Last edited by Torone at Mar 31 2003, 08:11 AM

Ahhh, okay. IC....so if they auction off the oil rights they shouldn't be allowed to tax the oil.....makes sense.

New article: http://www.prolog.net/webnews/wed/cn/Qiraq...s.RTQf_DMU.html

CAIRO, March 30 (AFP) - The United States and Britain will place Iraq's future oil revenue in a UN-supervised account, said British Prime Minister Tony Blair in an article published Sunday in Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram.

US "President (George W.) Bush, Prime Minister (of Spain Jose Maria) Aznar and I have pledged Iraq's oil will be placed in a UN trust fund to benefit the people of Iraq and renew a once great nation," wrote Blair.

"We will work together towards lifting UN sanctions as soon as Iraq meets its obligations," he added, referring to the embargo imposed after Baghdad's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, which ended seven months later.

"I want all Iraqis -- Arab, Assyrian, Kurd, Turkoman, Sunni, Shiite, Christian and all other groups -- to share in the fruits of this new, prosperous Iraq, united within its current border," Blair said.

"British military forces will withdraw from Iraq as soon as practicable. We hope to see the early establishment of a transitional civilian administration, " he stressed.

Blair's comment comes amid British press reports of differences between him and Bush on the role of the United Nations in post-war Iraq, including supervision of the vital oil sector.

Britain wants a prominent role for the UN while the United States is wary of its slow bureaucracy, offering the international organisation a backseat with mainly humanitarian prerogatives .

The UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1472 Friday, allowing resumption of its "oil-for-food" programme for Iraq, giving Secretary General Kofi Annan control for 45 days over the humanitarian side of the UN programme that uses Iraq's oil revenues for food and medical supplies.

Iraq swiftly rejected the resolution. "Any measure which does not involve the Iraqi government cannot be implemented on the ground," said Information Minister Mohammed Said al-Sahhaf.