Three months after the US occupation of Iraq, the country is still being shaken up. But there is progress. One advance has been in the oil industry, which has been revived mainly by US companies, some of them associated with leading Washington politicians. In an exclusive story, Foreign Report reveals a second advance that will affect regional strategies and the USA's position in the Arab/Islamic world.

This second development, less well known but no less important, is the US decision to rebuild the Iraqi armed forces.

The USA has a simple idea: to make money out of Iraq. Exploiting Iraqi oil is one way of doing this. We expect US companies to win the lion's share of the contracts. Britain should get a look-in. The French, Russians and Germans, who had 'future contracts' with Saddam Hussein's regime that would have come into effect after the end of UN sanctions, will be out of the deal.

We expect the Bush administration to use the technique applied with Egypt and Israel, both overloaded with new US weapons. The USA will rebuild the Iraqi army on condition that new weapons purchased for the armed forces will be made in the USA, which will supply much of the credit for their purchase with the rest coming from oil revenues.
from Janes Military Analysis (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr030625_1_n.shtml)

And then we wonder why Iranians may/are making nuclear weapons: Iran's nuclear work revealed (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jdw/jdw030624_1_n.shtml) or why China helps them. Bascially no one has any trust in the USA government - lets face it they lie/cheat/steal and who knows what else - they are untrust worthy. It's so easy for the US Gov to sell the idea "everyone is out to get us". Maybe "out to stop us" would be a better way of putting it.

I'm sorry but no matter what your views of the war or US foregin Policy, the notion that the US has gone into Iraq to profit from Iraqi oil is absurd. The US will spend many more billions of dollars in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and government than could be made from the sale of it's oil. And if the US wanted oil so badly why didn't we seize Iraq at the end of first Gulf War? You can question the war, and even The Bush administration's motivations for starting this war. But the idea that the US is in it just for the oil/profit just does not hold up to any kind of logical reasoning.

Yo! BackdoorBandit!
Hang around here long enough and you may learn different.
Welcome to the forum.
Dee Cee

much more may be spent reconstructing Iraq than from is made from direct sales or Iraqi oil yes BUT and its a big but ^_^.
The money paying isn't american its Iraqi and money from other countries buying Iraqi oil and that money goes into American Corporations pockets and America.
So America makes money from the oil...makes money from the reconstruction, Iraq and the world foot the bill.
So why is this suddenly such an illogical motive?

I think the real reason Bush went into Iraq is to use it as a tool for his "war on terrorism" and part of that is regime change in the so called "rogue nations". If, and that is a big if, they can manage to bring some sort of democracy to Iraq, it will serve as a catalyst for change in the region. Espeically in neighboring Iran, which is another member of Bush's "Axis of Evil". To some degree events in Iraq already seem to be serving as a destablizing force for the ruling regime in Iran. And if Iraq's move to democracy doesn't serve the purpose of stirring reform in "rouge" nations like Iran then the US could always use Iraq as a launching pad for the next war against others in the region. I'm not saying I agree with this policy. But I think if you look at the facts and the rhetoric coming out of the Bush administration it is pretty obvious that Iraq was the first of many nations that will face a volley of political, economic, and if need be, military pressure to bring about regime change.

Pretty soon Ethiopia might be declared a terrorist roque nation for not wanting to buy American GM seeds....

I'm sorry but no matter what your views of the war or US foregin Policy, the notion that the US has gone into Iraq to profit from Iraqi oil is absurd.

what about the notion that Israel could proffit handsomely from Iraqi oil?

I'm not aware of how that would happen. Perhaps you could explain.

something my Jewish friend mentioned in passing. He's very candid and frank with the political situation. We were talking about the war, and the inevitable oil debate started, and he just mentioned that Israel hasn't got it's own oil supply, and then gave me one of those "know what I mean??" looks.

been to busy to check it out.;)

So now the USA is going to set up an Israeli controlled government in Iraq?

:rolleyes:

...no, Israel benefitting from the US initiated regime change in Iraq does not equal an israeli controlled gvt in iraq.
It doesnt have to.
Hows about some lateral thinking;)

Obviously Michael hasn't looked at the bill for the war. Its huge and is growing every day. There is not a chance we would make a net profit even if we were playing as dirty as he says.

Anyway we would have to buy oil from them like anybody else. Even then it would not directly benifit the US government. It might help private companies a bit (still not much) but the government would only see a faint shadow of this in taxes.

If we were trying to make some sort of profit we would do what civilizations have done for thousands of years. We would have gone in and taken every last thing of value, burnt down everything else, and gone home. Everything in that Iraqi museum would be in the Smithsonian, the Iraqi national bank would be empty, and the furnishings from his palaces would be on route to the US.

Even then it would not directly benifit the US government.
Sure would benefit those members of the US administration who get personal payments from private companies in the arms trade, the energy business and so on, wouldn't it?

We would have gone in and taken every last thing of value, burnt down everything else, and gone home. Everything in that Iraqi museum would be in the Smithsonian, the Iraqi national bank would be empty, and the furnishings from his palaces would be on route to the US.
There was a call for Iraqi artifacts to be hauled to US museums. Personally, I think it's only a matter of time.
The national bank is going to be changed to use dollars... so the US can just print off enough cash and buy anything they want. However, in real terms, that means that the Iraqis get paper and you get goods...
As to resources going to the US, the first tanker of Iraqi Oil left Iraq today for the US.

But you're right - the whole invasion was not for gaining oil. You can do that by just buying it. But what the invasion did do was to arrange matters so that Iraqi oil is now sold for dollars and not euros - a state of affairs that, had it spread to other OPEC countries, would do more damage to the US economy than even Dubya.

Give me all your paper then if its so worthless. And those silly little metal tokens your government prints.
You of course know how heinously devalued Iraqi currency it and that we dont want Saddams face on every bill.

FYI: As soon as the Euro equals the Dollar (1 dollar= 1 Euro) I would lock their values together.

Blahblahblah. Like the leading Capitalist country in the world would have made a move without making sure expenses were paid and more.

As soon as the Euro equals the Dollar (1 dollar= 1 Euro) I would lock their values together.
Since it went from $0.86 through $1 to the current $1.154 without anyone in the EU or US suggesting that (and for good reason), I doubt anyone's going to suggest it now - thankfully. I don't particularly want my currency tied to the dollar right now!

Exactly why I was thinking about it.

I think it's sad to see the "USA bad oil-hungry militarist nation" conspiracy still alive.

First of all, do you think GW. Bush has his own personal swimming pool he wants to fill with Iraqi oil? Not to my knowledge he doesnt! ;p

Who gets the oil? The *market* gets the oil.

Who is paid for the oil? The Iraqi *people* is paid for the oil.

Yes, US oil entrepreneurs will most likely be middlemen in the extraction and sale of the oil, but as someone else here has said, it's only fair that some money go back to the USA in the form of taxes on the oil companies' profits - a military operation of the magnitude we have seen is not free - far from it.

And lastly - stop the **** about the USA occupying (evil sense of the word) Iraq. They have liberated 26 million Iraqis from the worst megamurderer on planet Earth for the last 10 years.

The fact that the Iraqi people (those few who did) were allowed to protest against the US occupation is a sure testimony to the fact that the Iraqi people is now MUCH MORE free and safe than under Saddam.

And even if the USA left Iraq after Saddam was thrown out, the US would STILL be under fire from anti-americans... but this time for "leaving the Iraqi's in the after-war turmoil etc etc " (hypothetical situation, but I would not at all be surprised if we were to see such a reaction - it's emotion that drives the anti-USA banter, you know).

- Peter, Denmark

PS: I dont particulary like GWB.

(edit: spelling)

I think it's sad to see the "USA bad oil-hungry malitarist nation" conspiracy still alive.

Call it what it is man, PNAC.

First of all, do you think GW. Bush has his ownpersonal swimming pool he wants to fill with Iraqi oil? Not to my knowledge he doesnt!

Unless Bush has a death wish :D he won't do that.

Who gets the oil? The *market* gets the oil.

And in reality who is the market? The US 20 million barrels a day!

Who is paid for the oil? The Iraqi *people* is paid for the oil.
Right? only if the oil is nationalized, not privitized.

stop the **** about the USA occupying (evil sense of the word) Iraq. They have liberated 26 million Irais from the worst megamurderer on plater Earth for the last 10 years.


Do you realize what you are saying? You killed 7000 to get rid of one man, you are the one's who supported and proped up Saddam during the horrid 80's. Who defended Saddam at Halajba? The good ole USof A. It is occupation my friend freedom and democracy are when the people of the land decide for themsleves to free themselves from Saddam. If you really cared, then you would have went in, in 1980! Stop the Bull shit.

The fact that the Iraqi people (well, some of them) were allowed to protest against the US occupation is a sure testimony to the fact that the Iraqi people is now MUCH MORE free and safe than under Saddam.

Most of those protesters what a theocratic Iraq with democrapcy. Free and safe? Ironic too bad most don't have clean water, or electricity, or their heritage was destroyed by the looting of the Iraqi museum, looting hospitals, meanwhile the first thing the US did in Baghdad was secure the oil ministry.

it's emotion that drives the anti-USA banter, you know

And it's complete and utter ignorance that drives pro-war sentiment like that.

Clockwood,
I can understand what the US would get from it - but what the hell would the EU have to gain by tying itself to a nation with a $40 billion/month trade imbalance and a $44 trillion fiscal deficet?

DJ,
think it's sad to see the "USA bad oil-hungry malitarist nation" conspiracy still alive.
And I think it's sad to see people still thinking "it was about oil" means that the only reason for the invasion was to throw a few drums on a ship and send it to the US. It was about oil - but about controlling it's sale rather than just stealing some.
Of course, the presence of US military bases in the middle east wasn't exactly a fly in the ointment either.

First of all, do you think GW. Bush has his ownpersonal swimming pool he wants to fill with Iraqi oil? Not to my knowledge he doesnt! ;p
How about the million dollars a year that Cheney gets from Halliburton? Think that might have influenced him in any way?
And that's just one example.

Who gets the oil? The *market* gets the oil.
Yes, but the market gets it by paying in dollars.

Who is paid for the oil? The Iraqi *people* is paid for the oil.
Actually, that's not quite so clear. I haven't seen any plans to disperse the money to the people. I have seen the US say that they'll take at least a large share of the proceeds to pay for the war. I've also seen the US say that the proceeds from the sale will be used to rebuild Iraq - which means that the proceeds will pay US companies (recall that no other companies were allowed to apply for the contracts) to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure that US forces destroyed in the first place.

Yes, US oil entrepreneurs will probably be middlemen in the extraction and sale of the oil, but as someone else here has said, it's only fair that some money go back to teh USA in the form of taxes on the oil companies' profits - a military operation of the magnitude we have seen is not free - far from it.
So you lie about the reason for the war, go in and kill ten thousand innocent civilians or more, destroy what little infrastructure survived the last gulf war and sanctions, and then you expect them to pay for it?
Nice of you...

And lastly - stop the **** about the USA occupying (evil sense of the word) Iraq. They have liberated 26 million Irais from the worst megamurderer on plater Earth for the last 10 years.
Actually, that title does not belong to Hussein. And last I checked, the US troops were merrily occupying Iraq. They're a foreign army in Iraq during a time of war and they've taken over the civil structures - that's occupation.

The fact that the Iraqi people (well, some of them) were allowed to protest against the US occupation is a sure testimony to the fact that the Iraqi people is now MUCH MORE free and safe than under Saddam.
All bar the ones that get in the way of the US.

And even if the USA left Iraq after Saddam was thrown out, the US wouuld STILL be under fire from anti-americans... but this time for "leaving the Iraqi's in the after-war turmoil etc etc " (hypothetical situation, but I would not at all be surprised if we were to see such a reaction - it's emotion that drives the anti-USA banter, you know).
Oddly enough, you're right - had you lied about the reason for the war, gone in and killed ten thousand innocent civilians or more, destroyed what little infrastructure survived the last gulf war and sanctions, and then left them all to die because of the damage done to the infrastructure, yes, you would have been criticised.
Funny old world, isn't it?

Originally posted by nico


Who is paid for the oil? The Iraqi *people* is paid for the oil.
Right? only if the oil is nationalized, not privitized.

I've seen no indication that it will not be nationalized.

stop the **** about the USA occupying (evil sense of the word) Iraq. They have liberated 26 million Irais from the worst megamurderer on plater Earth for the last 10 years.


>Do you realize what you are saying? You killed 7000 to get rid of one man, you are the one's who supported and proped up Saddam during the horrid 80's. Who defended Saddam at Halajba? The good ole USof A. It is occupation my friend freedom and democracy are when the people of the land decide for themsleves to free themselves from Saddam. If you really cared, then you would have went in, in 1980! Stop the Bull shit.

No, pal, YOU stop the bullshit. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the US military contributions to the former Iraqi regime was miniscule compared to that of France, Germany, China and Russia. Why do you think all the Iraqi tanks were Soviet T-6X and the missile launcers were SCUD's (FYI: Russian Design). Why did the Iraqis use AK-74's (I dont see the US army dealing is that particular goods!).

Oh yeah, lets say your numers are correct. 7000 dead from the liberation. It took one month, roughy 30 days. Thats, say, 233 dead per day. I've seen numbers quoted that suggests that Saddam killed between 50 and FOUR HUNDRED of his own populace each day. That EXCLUDES dead from the UN embargo. So the day the war started, Iraqi lives were saved. According to yours and my figured, it's up to 166 people per day!

And lets not even start counting the ones who had died at the hands of dear Uncle Saddam, if you and your anti-war friend woyld have had their say, and SH would still be in power. IOW, people who you and your pals dont give a shit about so you can keep on droning about the evils of US capitalism etc etc adnauseam.

The fact that the Iraqi people (well, some of them) were allowed to protest against the US occupation is a sure testimony to the fact that the Iraqi people is now MUCH MORE free and safe than under Saddam.


>Most of those protesters what a theocratic Iraq with democrapcy. Free and safe? Ironic too bad most don't have clean water, or electricity, or

Did they before Saddam? No, they did not. Dont blame the US for things they arent responsible for.

>their heritage was destroyed by the looting of the Iraqi museum, looting hospitals, meanwhile the first thing the US did in Baghdad was secure the oil ministry.

You spread lies, nico. The Iraqi heritage that you mention, was more or less kept intact at the Bagdad museum, and the bits that were looted were returned by the US occupational forces. That particular piece of news made headlines two weeks ago.

it's emotion that drives the anti-USA banter, you know

And it's complete and utter ignorance that drives pro-war sentiment like that. [/B]

Your retort to my post hardly changes my opinion.

I've seen no indication that it will not be nationalized.


No but already contracts are going out to private companies.

No, pal, YOU stop the bullshit.

I don't consider Chicken hawks pals, but pussy warrriors.

If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that the US military contributions to the former Iraqi regime was miniscule compared to that of France, Germany, China and Russia.

It's of no concern my rejected friend, it wasn't China, Russia, France , Germany that were hankering for war it was the USA. It was the US' hypocritical view that pissed off so many. Here look i'll even give a list of countries that supported IRaq:

USA
Spain
Portugal
Belgium
W.Germany
Austira
Poland
Hunagry
Yugoslavia
Morocco
Egypt
Sudan
Ethoipia
Saudi Arabia
UAE
Pakistan
Phillipines
Jordan
Brazil
China
USSR
France
UK
Italy
NK

I would imagine in order the USSR, China, France, Germany, then the US would come into play. Who gave Saddam Anthrax? It was the good ole USA. And it was the US that claimed the Iran attacked Halajba not Iraq, what a ally! Arse

I've seen numbers quoted that suggests that Saddam killed between 50 and FOUR HUNDRED of his own populace each day.

Link

That EXCLUDES dead from the UN embargo

That the US supported? Why are you defacing your own argument? Mind you 1 million died because of those sanctions.

According to yours and my figured, it's up to 166 people per day!


And we forgot the 300,000 dead Iraqi's in the first gulf war.

people who you and your pals dont give a shit about so you can keep on droning about the evils of US capitalism etc etc adnauseam.


Excuse me? You are a moron, it's deadly obvious. If I am not mistaken the US put Saddam into power, it was the US that supports the murderous regimes in China, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Turkey, Vietnam, Pakistan,etc. The evils of American imperialism arse not capitalism.

Did they before Saddam? No, they did not. Dont blame the US for things they arent responsible for.

The US is responsible for Saddam so yes we can bitch!

You spread lies, nico. The Iraqi heritage that you mention, was more or less kept intact at the Bagdad museum, and the bits that were looted were returned by the US occupational forces. That particular piece of news made headlines two weeks ago.


3000 priceless pieces still missing, and the most important like the harp are goners. Tell that to Iraqi's. Go suck on a bottle, or Blair moron.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks


>How about the million dollars a year that Cheney gets from Halliburton? Think that might have influenced him in any way? And that's just one example.

I wouldnt know about that. I'm not a US citizen and I know little about US politics and political figures.

>Yes, but the market gets it by paying in dollars.

Whats your point? That the preferred means of exchange is US$? That says diddley squat. I could buy in US$ if I wanted.

>Actually, that's not quite so clear. I haven't seen any plans to disperse the money to the people. I have seen the US say that they'll take at least a large share of the proceeds to pay for the war. I've also seen the US say that the proceeds from the sale will be used to rebuild Iraq - which means that the proceeds will pay US companies (recall that no other companies were allowed to apply for the contracts) to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure that US forces destroyed in the first place.

Nonsense. The lack of useful infrastructure in largely due to that the existing roads, freshwater et al were left to decau during the latest 12 yrs of Saddam.


>So you lie about the reason for the war, go in and kill ten thousand innocent civilians or more,

I didnt lie. The US / Uk tops may have, but in the end, 26 mil people were freed, so I'm willing to for give that transgression.

> destroy what little infrastructure survived the last gulf war

Lie.

> and sanctions,

Imposed by the UN coffeeclub, which, funny you should mention it, also ordered GW Bush Snr. to STAY out of Bagdad 12 years ago. So you have the Un to thank for sanctions, poverty and the last 12 years of terror under Saddam H.

> and then you expect them to pay for it? Nice of you...

They have never seen a dime from the oil anyway in the years Saddam were in charge (except for the cahs they god for playing "O WE LOVE UNCLE SADDAM, HES SOO GOOD AND WISE!" on camera)


>Actually, that title does not belong to Hussein. And last I checked, the US troops were merrily occupying Iraq. They're a foreign army in Iraq during a time of war and they've taken over the civil structures - that's occupation.

Twisting words seem to be the best argument of US haters...


>Oddly enough, you're right - had you lied about the reason for the war, gone in and killed ten thousand innocent civilians or more,

Nico said 7.000. BTW, see my reply to him. Even if your (and his) figures are true (which i doubt), more people will have been saved by the liberation that had the US not entered Iraq.

> destroyed what little infrastructure survived the last gulf war and sanctions,

Lies again.

> and then left them all to die because of the damage done to the infrastructure, yes, you would have been criticised.
Funny old world, isn't it? [/B]


Yes - funny old world.

Lets summarize - you and your opinionated peers continue to argue that the military intervention was evil and bad, you sprout lies, misinformation , inflated numbers, hypes and myths, and all in all, you would have left a murdering madman in power, just so you could continue to polish your ****ing halo and claim moral high ground. All whilst 26 million people would have to go on living in terror and poor conditions, with lack of food and medical supplies thanks to the UN coffee club, which people like you and your equals thought were an attempt to dethrone Saddam.

Millions of people would be condemned to hell on earth because of the idiocy of you and your peers.

Of cource, dont let that stop you from keeping in the old vinyl drive. I'm just an ignorant, Bush-and-capitalism-ass-kissing warmonger. Right. Sure.

>You are a moron, it's deadly obvious.

As I started saying, emotions are at work here.


Sorry, you'll waste no more of my time.

Lets summarize

Your a idoit!

you and your opinionated peers continue to argue that the military intervention was evil and bad

When the US does it no, of course not. But anyother country that tries is evil. You set a very dangerous precedent, if China invades Taiwan on "WMD" then do complain.

you would have left a murdering madman in power

Hey you did it during th 80's so wtf is your point? None of us said we supported Saddam, the US could have easily overthrown the Iraqi pres. in 1991 when GHB told the Iraqi's to rebel and they would get assistance. Guess what arse the US pilots in there F-15's saw Iraqi Hinds kill thousands in the crush on the rebelion. You left him in power, not us.


All whilst 26 million people would have to go on living in terror and poor conditions, with lack of food and medical supplies thanks to the UN coffee club

You must be on crack, the US voted for the sanctions and threatened any nation that was doing illegal trade with Iraq.

26 million people

Shit you don't even know this, 24 million. :rolleyes:

Millions of people would be condemned to hell on earth because of the idiocy of you and your peers

3.7 million were because of US military action in Vietnam, then another 300,000 in the Gulf War, then 1 million in Iraq-Iran war in which the US raked in $$$, and 7,000 now. What is your freaking point?

I'm just an ignorant, Bush-and-capitalism-ass-kissing warmonger.

Glad you realized it.

As I started saying, emotions are at work here.
Sorry, you'll waste no more of my time.

Actually visa versa don't waste any of our time.

You said nothing of fact, all you did was speak rhectoric. That's the difference in quality.

Wow! I can't people still feel that this war was moralistic.

You are quick to yell out "Support the troops"...but these troops are dying while protecting oil fields and policing a sovereign nation.

Neither of the two is moral. Saddam was a dictator 1 year ago. Saddam was a dictator 10 years ago. Saddam was a dictator when we supported him to kill Iranian people. The fact of the matter is Saddam has been a dictator from the get-go….why did we need 9/11 (a pathetic excuse) to decide to liberate the Iraqi people?

Didn’t god ‘bless’ the US of A before 9/11? Glad to hear Saddam is gone, will be glader when that Repugnik is gone.

BEWARE all sciforum members do not go to DJ's link, if you dare do so make sure you are wearing sun glasses the sight ain't pretty.

Fat Unemployed Slob

Understatment alert!

I wouldnt know about that. I'm not a US citizen and I know little about US politics and political figures.
I'm not a US citizen either, but we're all learning that the luxury of ignorance of the US political system isn't one we can enjoy anymore. It's not quite the same as being ignorant of an infant playing with a shotgun, but it's not too far off.

Whats your point? That the preferred means of exchange is US$? That says diddley squat. I could buy in US$ if I wanted.
Actually you couldn't. The link between Argentina and Iraq is that both sold oil for euros only as opposed to dollars only, and both were attacked by the US (one covertly, through a coup on it's legitimate government, and the other overtly, through an invasion decided on two days after 9/11).
And the fact that you could only buy oil from the other opec members in dollars means that the dollar enjoys an artifical sheltering from fluctuation and the US economy has an artifical support. Should OPEC ever switch from dollars to euros, the US economy will go into freefall - and with a $44 trillion fiscal deficet, it's got a long way to fall. Think Afghanistan, but with SUVs...
Actually, think "Barb Wire" - and you thought Pam couldn't do serious acting!

Nonsense. The lack of useful infrastructure in largely due to that the existing roads, freshwater et al were left to decau during the latest 12 yrs of Saddam.
Really? Nothing to do with large amounts of high explosive dropped on infrastructural targets by the US during the invasion then? Well, glad you cleared that up - so now tell me, what were they shooting at again?

I didnt lie. The US / Uk tops may have, but in the end, 26 mil people were freed, so I'm willing to for give that transgression.
Firstly, I think you'll find it was the US administration that did the bulk of the lying, along with the UK government. And you may forgive the transgression as you will - but you'll find yourself in a very small (and rather gullible) minority if you think that it's a good model of behaviour.

Imposed by the UN coffeeclub, which, funny you should mention it, also ordered GW Bush Snr. to STAY out of Bagdad 12 years ago. So you have the Un to thank for sanctions, poverty and the last 12 years of terror under Saddam H.
For a start, the US was acting under UN mandate the last time, and the UN is specifically prohibited from interfering in the domestic affairs of a member state - and were that ever to be lifted, the US would have withdrawn from the UN before the ink was dry on the first signature, and would probably use military force to prevent it's enactment. You don't get to get it both ways. Either the UN is a world government and can interfere with other soverign nation's domestic affairs - or it isn't and it can't.

Secondly, the last 12 years also saw prohibited weapons eliminated in Iraq by the UN without one casualty. Not one.
In retrospect, I'm wondering if maybe that was such a good idea - it was effectively disarming someone and then letting them get mugged. You'll note that the DPRK hasn't been touched, because they're too well armed to be. And now, every tinpot dictator in the world has seen this example and if you think they're not going to be racing to get any serious weapons they can get their hands on, you're more naive than you appear to be. And with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the poverty of the scientists that developed their weapons systems and the poor security watching their stockpiles, perhaps that's not a good thing.

They have never seen a dime from the oil anyway in the years Saddam were in charge (except for the cahs they god for playing "O WE LOVE UNCLE SADDAM, HES SOO GOOD AND WISE!" on camera)
And now they won't see a dime from it (note - dime, not euro...) and they'll wind up playing "O we love Uncle Sam" to the cameras.
Much better... :rolleyes:

Twisting words seem to be the best argument of US haters...
What twisting?
Go ahead, prove me wrong.

Nico said 7.000.
The estimates vary. They vary because if all you have are small parts of what used to be humans, you can't get an accurate bodycount. Plus, the count is ongoing - there are several agencies all over Iraq trying to get a final figure, and that means digging up large piles of rubble to find all the bits that are left. It'll be a while before we get a more accurate number. For now, the estimates range from seven to twelve thousand, approximately.

BTW, see my reply to him. Even if your (and his) figures are true (which i doubt), more people will have been saved by the liberation that had the US not entered Iraq.
So your benchmark of acceptable behaviour is set by Saddam Hussein? That's unfair! What about Pol Pot, Adolf Hitler and Joesph Stalin, those well-known benchmarks of acceptable behaviour?
:rolleyes:

Lets summarize - you and your opinionated peers continue to argue that the military intervention was evil and bad, you sprout lies, misinformation , inflated numbers, hypes and myths, and all in all, you would have left a murdering madman in power, just so you could continue to polish your ****ing halo and claim moral high ground.
The military intervention was unprofessional and incompetent and bad - not evil per se. And that's the professional opinion of british soldiers in the field, who were more worried during the action of the americans than the iraqis.

And what lies, misinformation, inflated numbers, hype or myths?
Go on, prove to me that your numbers are accurate and I'll use them.

Left him in power? I wouldn't have put him in power - or didn't you know that he was recruited by the US in 1959, trained to assasinate the then-prime minister of Iraq (who was legally elected), and then smuggled him out of the country when he managed to miss the prime minister and shoot himself in the leg, and then kept him in a safehouse for three years before smuggling him back into the country in '62 where he went about overthrowing the government that had taken control of the country. I wouldn't have supported him through that, sold him weapons and given him millions of dollars in credit to buy the weapons. And I wouldn't have sat down with the guy two weeks after he gassed halajba, killing around 5-6,000 kurds, shook his hand and given him $300 milllion in credit to buy more weapons - nor would I have done a PR number on the attack itself trying to blame it on Iran. In shory, I wouldn't do what the US has done.
But you want to trust them?

All whilst 26 million people would have to go on living in terror and poor conditions, with lack of food and medical supplies thanks to the UN coffee club
The UN sanctions were the most the UN could do given the UN charter. And the US has sole responsibility for quite a few of the hardships that the Iraqis suffered - they incited the Shite rising during the first gulf war, in direct violation of their mandate (they knew well ahead of time that they would not be helping the rising - so they effectively used their lives to inconvience Hussein's army in Kuwait - and then they left Hussein prosecute counter-insurgents with helicopter gunships), they committed the worst violation of the Geneva Convention that I've ever heard of in full view of the world by attacking the withdrawing Iraqi armed forces on the road to Basra (since they'd been ordered to stand down and withdraw in compliance with the UN resolution, they were not only protected by the UN charter, but by the Geneva Convention as well - and the US ignored both and just slaughtered them, most of them forcibly conscripted by Hussein in the first place).
And if you want to change the UN charter so that the UN has the authority to intervene in domestic affairs of it's member states, you'd better be prepared to take on the US, because they'll lead the charge to stop you.

Millions of people would be condemned to hell on earth because of the idiocy of you and your peers.
Actually, millions of people are living in hell on earth because of the actions me and "my peers" object to.

I'm just an ignorant, Bush-and-capitalism-ass-kissing warmonger. Right. Sure.
And don't let the fact that my facts and numbers are correct, my analysis is correct and the people on the ground agree with me discourage you from dismissing me as yet another unamerican commie pinko long-haired tree-hugging hippie peacenik...
:rolleyes:

Anyone that thought that the US was taking out Saddam to give the Iraqi people a new and improved democratic nation who's resources would be utilized for the betterment of the Iraqi people is a FOOL!

Iraq will make more billionaires in the US in the next 24 months than silicon valley over the next decade. :eek:

Abdulla....