B Nice war - here's the bill

On 12 Sep 2003 21:51:34 -0700, (charles liu)
wrote:

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
charles liu wrote:

And the beauty is Iraqis have to pay for the damage themselves
(reconstruction cost is comming out of their foo-for-oil program and
sale of their national oil reserve into the pockets of Halliburton and
Chevron).

The only parallel I can see is what the colonialists did to China 200
years ago - beat them up, then graft their wealth via war restitution.

Oh yeah! The US is going to become fabulously wealthy over Iraq.

I guess you haven't seen the projected figure for oil revenue for the
next 20 years in Iraq. I think it's into range of 10s, maybe 100s
trillion dollars.

So? The Iraqis might get rich, but the US will not. We are not
thieves, and Iraqi oil money will go to the Iraqis.

Al Minyard

Sure not looking that way right now!


SMH

In article ,
(charles liu) wrote:

I guess you haven't seen the projected figure for oil revenue for the
next 20 years in Iraq. I think it's into range of 10s, maybe 100s
trillion dollars.

Considering that all of OPEC, *combined*, sold about $200 billion in oil
in 2000 (at constant rates, about $4 trillion over the next twenty
years), you're going to have to come up with some real proof of that.
You're off by one or two orders of magnitude, at least.

Iraq's total proven oil reserves are in the 360 to 400 billion barrel
range, which means they have about $10 trillion dollars in the ground.
They're currently planning on pumping about 2 billion barrels a year (in
a year or so). Massive increases in production will get them up to
about 3 to 5 billion barrels a year. *Maybe*.

Over twenty years, they *might* get up to a single trillion in oil
revenues.

Oil companies (the ones doing the actual work) get about $1.50 a barrel
for extracting the oil. Which means that the oil companies will get
about $60 billion for doing all of the work that makes that trillion for
Iraq, while spending a *lot* of money to do so. While taking the risk
that something else bad will happen.

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Alan Minyard puked:


I do not consider that a problem, more like an awakening. France has
been an enemy of the US for many years now. The fact that this is now
"out in the open" should clarify our foreign policy in relation to
France.

Al Minyard

Traitors like you need to be shot. A nest of Neo_CON Jewish Traitors
very, very badly need to be shot. "France an enemy" indeed. 'Bet
Britain would be "an enemy" if Toady Blair had been insufficiently
grovelling. Up against a wall, the lot of you. ****ing Traitors.

Grantland

The Founding Fathers

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:24:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
I'd figure another six months. Go for an autumn invasion with full UN
support and more planning. The UN weapons inspectors get the runaround,
Hussein continues to rattle his sabre, the French case for delay is
aired and disproven.

The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.

Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

Might have worked again in 2003.

One problem is, the US has locked itself into a retrospective
Francophobia. The French will go with their perceived interests... one
tactic of diplomacy is to find a way to align that with what you want to
do. Recall, after all, they had troops on the ground fighting alongside
in 1991.

I do not consider that a problem, more like an awakening. France has
been an enemy of the US for many years now. The fact that this is now
"out in the open" should clarify our foreign policy in relation to
France.

So the US _resented_ having French troops guard its left flank in 1991?
Why didn't it tell the French to go copulate with themselves and provide
their own flank security?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:16:26 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Alan Minyard
writes

The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.

Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

And came to the aid of South Korea in 1950.

Not to mention the eradication of smallpox, the polio eradication
efforts, all the good work done by UNICEF and the other UN agencies.
Since I have friends working in various parts of the UN, it's rather
irritating to hear so many people ignorantly assuming the UNSC is the
whole of the UN work, rather than a small fraction.

Peter Kemp

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Alan Minyard
writes

The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.

Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

Might have worked again in 2003.

You might note that the *last* time, Iraq actually had to invade another
country and threaten a couple more to get the UN to *allow* other
countries to respond...

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:24:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
I'd figure another six months. Go for an autumn invasion with full UN
support and more planning. The UN weapons inspectors get the runaround,
Hussein continues to rattle his sabre, the French case for delay is
aired and disproven.

The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.

Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

US troops were enroute and on the ground before the UN took any form
of "action". That the UN was on our side in that case was not exactly
requisite to our (including the significant UK aparticipation) doing
what had to be done.


Might have worked again in 2003.

Why? It sure as hell had NOT worked between 1991 and 2003 (or do you
think the multitude of resolutions that were not backed up due to foot
dragging actually *meant* anything?), so why you think it would have
enjoyed a miraculous conversion to being an effective organization in
03 is beyond me.


One problem is, the US has locked itself into a retrospective
Francophobia. The French will go with their perceived interests... one
tactic of diplomacy is to find a way to align that with what you want to
do. Recall, after all, they had troops on the ground fighting alongside
in 1991.

I do not consider that a problem, more like an awakening. France has
been an enemy of the US for many years now. The fact that this is now
"out in the open" should clarify our foreign policy in relation to
France.

So the US _resented_ having French troops guard its left flank in 1991?
Why didn't it tell the French to go copulate with themselves and provide
their own flank security?

LOL! You must have missed the last-minute cringing of the French
leadership; you know, when they started waffling about actually going
into combat, requiring your then-PM and our then-President to get on
the phone to try to stiffen French resolve? And if you really think
the 6th LAD's "flank protection" role was that important, much less
critical, then I have overestimated your tactical/operational insight,
Paul. The fact is that the French were shuffled off to that flank
because we could not count on them, and we then backed them up with a
brigade of the 82nd Abn Div in case they pulled another last minute
"we have decided that we should give Hussein more time" crap. Having
them along played nice for the political unity story, and on France's
behalf it allowed them to demonstrate to their erstwhile business
concerns in the Gulf that they were supporting the
Saudis/Kuwaitis--but they did not have a great deal of value in terms
of military contribution. A bit more than the couple of hundred
Hondurans serving in the coalition, perhaps, but not much more...

Brooks

In article ,
Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:16:26 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Alan Minyard
writes

The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.

Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

And came to the aid of South Korea in 1950.

Not to mention the eradication of smallpox, the polio eradication
efforts, all the good work done by UNICEF and the other UN agencies.
Since I have friends working in various parts of the UN, it's rather
irritating to hear so many people ignorantly assuming the UNSC is the
whole of the UN work, rather than a small fraction.

Instead of mentioning the wonderful things the UN did 30 to 50 years
ago, how about mentioning what really cool things they've done *lately*
to balance out the stupid things, like the mockery they've made of the
Human Rights Commission? Or the disaster that was the "oil for food"
program?"

Kofi Annan's vocal support of Saddam Hussein was a severe black mark for
the UN, and it's shocking that more people don't know anout that...

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 02:12:50 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Peter Kemp peter_n_kempathotmaildotcom wrote:

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:16:26 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , Alan Minyard
writes

The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.

Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

And came to the aid of South Korea in 1950.

Not to mention the eradication of smallpox, the polio eradication
efforts, all the good work done by UNICEF and the other UN agencies.
Since I have friends working in various parts of the UN, it's rather
irritating to hear so many people ignorantly assuming the UNSC is the
whole of the UN work, rather than a small fraction.

Instead of mentioning the wonderful things the UN did 30 to 50 years
ago, how about mentioning what really cool things they've done *lately*
to balance out the stupid things, like the mockery they've made of the
Human Rights Commission? Or the disaster that was the "oil for food"
program?"

Err, you may want check what I wrote. Small pox was only eradicated in
the last 20 years (which is why I have my scar from the shot), polio
is in the process *now*, UNICEF is still up and running last time I
checked.

Kofi Annan's vocal support of Saddam Hussein was a severe black mark for
the UN, and it's shocking that more people don't know anout that...

Splutter! What? I've never heard Kofi saying anything stronger than
"Iraq must comply" in favour of the old regime. Cite please (and since
the UN publishes almost all it's press conferences you should be able
to provide a URL).

Peter Kemp

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Alan Minyard
writes
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:24:38 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
I'd figure another six months. Go for an autumn invasion with full UN
support and more planning. The UN weapons inspectors get the runaround,
Hussein continues to rattle his sabre, the French case for delay is
aired and disproven.

The UN is a useless debating society, bent on doing nothing.

Worked pretty well at getting Hussein out of Kuwait in 1991.

Invasion of a "brother Arab" neighbor (Kuwait) sort of helped.

Might have worked again in 2003.

Not a chance. Conflicting interests and relationships with the Hussein
government between France, Germany, Russia, versus the US/UK.

Not to mention the sanctions increasingly being seen as "warfare" against
Iraqi children, "dying by the millions" (if you listen to the Left).

Even the apartheid South African government was humane enough that
sanctions could work. Not so Saddam. A government so ruthless, it was
perfectly willing to let selected members of its own people (a majority
by the way) suffer and die in the cause of nullifying effects of embargo.


SMH