we are cowboys going without the support of the world and it's costing us...some would argue that the price is worth it (that's not the point of this post).<br> <br> i say that diplomacy was such an easy thing to achieve yet the claim that this is about oil is directly at the heart of the diplomacy failing. i think having world support to oust this evil man would have been one of the easier things dubya's done, yet he refused to "lose the oil" for his friends. france and russia are largely against any action in iraq because they have deals for developing the oil fields and reserves in iraq. if dubya had really wanted to get the appearance of having the world behind this mission, he would have come right out and said that this isn't about oil and that france and russia will have their current contracts recognized when the dust settles. american companies could have still made a buck off of cleaning up and rebuilding, but france and russia won't have their contracts nullified. that would have been easy and would have shut many up with regard to this being about oil. diplomacy was never a target...oil was and is. <br><br>[color:blue] -sean</font color=blue>
Loc: New Hampshire
and how is the US supposed to guarantee contracts for Iraqi oil for France and Russian?<br><br>It's totally up to the Iraqi people what happens to the contracts - it their oil and their contracts.<br><br>
Diplomacy was tried...that's why he went to the UN instead of just going after Iraq at the start. But seems France was going to reject anything we brought forth that had action in it. What kind of deal is that? And the French really irked England too...so it's not just us.<br><br>All about oil eh? I disagree. France and Russia have deals going on with Iraq that they didn't want us to know about..ever think of that? And these contracts for oil that France has...wasn't that against the UN resolution back in 91? Hmmmm...I think so. <br><br>What gets me is why is it that everyone thinks the U.S. has something to hide, yet never questioned France and Russia's motives? Hmmmmmm....<br><br>
I still don't know where this argument stems from- is it only from the idea that Bush happens to be a product of big business, and more specifically oil-related businesses?<br><br>Seems to me a stronger case could be made for France and Russia NOT wanting to go to war/rocking the boat because of THEIR oil interest. <br><br>Failed diplomacy? Diplomacy is like the tango, though, ain't it? Takes two to do it, and Iraq wasn't exactly bending over backwards trying to make peace...<br><br><br><br><br>[color:red]Hold on, it's time for a </font color=red> <br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Failed diplomacy? Diplomacy is like the tango, though, ain't it?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Unless my history's fuzzy, the last diplomat that the US had was Ben Franklin...who got the FRENCH to aid us in a war against the British. Diplomacy is usually bunk but heck, it creates good governmental jobs.<br><br>drjohn<br><br>[i]My photographs[i]
_________________________ Old farts, the hidden caulk of civilization. Jim Atkinson
I still don't know where this argument stems from- is it only from the idea that Bush happens to be a product of big business, and more specifically oil-related businesses?<br><br>Well..I think that's the best they can come up with, you know?<br><br>
well, iraq has contracts with france and russia -- we should push for the iraqi people to honor those contracts unless those contracts are not beneficial to the people of iraq. plus, the us gov't is already contracting work out related to the oil fields. somehow, i doubt that any companies other than us companies were considered...haliburton figures to make bundles as one subsidiary is already a winner of a contract related to iraq and the war.<br><br>from the san francisco chronicle:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In San Francisco, anti-war activists have accused the Bechtel Corp., the engineering firm that rebuilt Kuwait's oil fields after Hussein destroyed them in the 1991 Gulf War, of waiting to profit from a new conflict. Bechtel officials discount that assertion as nonsense. <br><br>Spokesman Jonathan Marshall said that while the company is proud of the work it did rebuilding Kuwait's fields, "Bechtel has never lobbied to create a political crisis there. We're not even at war yet, so it's premature to speculate." <br><br>But Marshall added that "I'm sure the United States government will consider Bechtel if there is work to be done." <br><br>A report by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, a think tank created by the former secretary of state to the first President George Bush, warns the current administration not to show favoritism for American firms in rebuilding Iraq's oil industry. <br><br>"There should be a level playing field for all international players to participate in future repair, development and exploration efforts," the report said. "A heavy-handed American approach will only convince them (the Iraqis) . . . and the rest of the world that the operation against Iraq was undertaken for imperialist, rather than disarmament, reasons."<p><hr></blockquote><p>we have yet to see how this part plays out other than already knowing that at least one contract for the oil fields has already been awarded.<br>more from the chronicle: <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/17/ED76439.DTL">LINK (CLICK)</a><br>snipit:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>France, Russia and China also worry that in a post-war Iraq, an American- friendly government would reward U.S. friends -- Exxon Mobil Corp. of Irving, Texas or Royal Dutch/Shell of London -- with lucrative oil contracts. In addition, an interim government will award some $3 billion to $5 billion to the oil-service industry. Among those who have bid for such contracts are Fluor Corp., the Bechtel Group Ind. and Halliburton Co., which Dick Cheney ran before he became vice president. The Pentagon has already awarded the Houston- based company, Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., a multimillion-dollar contract to develop a plan for fire-fighting operations in Iraqi oil fields<p><hr></blockquote><p>multiple millions being spent on american companies all before the iraqi people have any say...not surprising that we're only dealing with american companies and friends of cheney...no wonder france and russia were reluctant to sign on.<br><br>[color:blue] -sean</font color=blue>
Loc: North Carolina
Sean..dang it..does anything please you? Why don't you put some of the hard work you are doing to point out everything wrong with our nation's leadership and point out what is positive with our nation! Come on man is the cup half full or half empty.<br><br>
Loc: New Hampshire
I believe these companies listed in your articles will be paid by the good ole USA to put out any oil fires and rebuild any well destroyed during the war. Iraq is in debt and has no cash reserves.<br><br>Long term contracts should be left entirely up to the Iraqi people and I was responding to this part of your post<br><br>"..he would have come right out and said that this isn't about oil and that france and russia will have their current contracts recognized when the dust settles. american companies could have still made a buck off of cleaning up and rebuilding, but france and russia won't have their contracts nullified..."<br><br>and I was wondering how George Bush was in control of contracts that Saddam has made in the past to the point of guarantee to France and Russia.<br><br>If there is back lash against France and Russia for blocking any UN resolution liberating Iraq and the Iraqi people want to burn up the contracts they made with Saddam - that is their right! It's their oil and I don't think the US should interfere.<br><br><br><br>
i say that diplomacy was such an easy thing to achieve yet the claim that this is about oil is directly at the heart of the diplomacy failing.<br><br>It was Never about oil in the US eyes. Bush came out and said that from day one - You might have missed that.<br><br>Everyone else kept saying Its oil its oil its oil - Even in my non PHD mind, I knew it was Not about oil.<br><br>Diplomacy.<br>Well the UN had 12 years.<br>Wheres France, Germany, China, Russia diplomacy???? with Iraq?? After all they are the ones that are in direct trading with Iraq. Contracts et-all.<br><br>Bottom line.<br>Saddam appears to want to lost his Power, his Country, his status, his Palaces.<br>Just to keep his weapons of mass distruction.<br><br>Kinda reminds me of that Taliban guy - Lost everything for one man - Osama.<br>Mindless and stupid pride. It takes 2 countrys to have diplomacy, when one don't listen ya might aswell be talking to a wall.<br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.