Whats going to happen to Iraq now?

[Shogunner696965]

If they took down the government, which they did, are they going to put their own U.S. standard government
in their place?

[karasz]

At 4/20/03 09:55 PM, Shogunner696965 wrote: If they took down the government, which they did, are they going to put their own U.S. standard government
in their place?

interim govt for a 3-5 years... THEN the 'elected' leader of Iraq, which will happen to be pro-west will have a lot of favors to repay to the US...

then iraq will be brought back into opec and the US will have 2 votes... kuwait and iraq, to do what the US wants it to...

[NEMESiSZ]

New Iraq will not be in OPEC, OPEC is a cartel, and the puppet government wouldn't dare go against the USA's wishes.

[NJDeadzone]

You know why Europe's been shittin itself over this war...one would guess terrorism, but i was drawn to a different hypothesis:

if the united states helps the Middle East evolve to a level where it can compete industrially with the world, who loses the most out of it: Europe! With the united states demolishing medieval economies and rebuffing them with cash and technology, the European nations will be at a distinct disadvantage. Oil + Technology+young workforce-mullahs=a limitless potential of trading power. Am i off?

[karasz]

At 4/20/03 10:14 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: New Iraq will not be in OPEC, OPEC is a cartel, and the puppet government wouldn't dare go against the USA's wishes.

why wouldnt the Iraq be part of OPEC??? OPEC can control oil prices in europe and south korea/japan... 2 areas very important to the US (traditionalist theory) SO if the US can influence more votes the better off the US is...

[FUNKbrs]

At 4/20/03 10:19 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: You know why Europe's been shittin itself over this war...one would guess terrorism, but i was drawn to a different hypothesis:

if the united states helps the Middle East evolve to a level where it can compete industrially with the world, who loses the most out of it: Europe! With the united states demolishing medieval economies and rebuffing them with cash and technology, the European nations will be at a distinct disadvantage. Oil + Technology+young workforce-mullahs=a limitless potential of trading power. Am i off?

you know, that makes too much damn sense. Europe is already playing catchup with the european union and the euro, and now the middle east is becoming industrialized and efficient. and unlike asia, middle easterners, are definitely not isolationist. The middle east controlled almost all trade right up to the crusades, it only stands to reason that they can do it again. (of course ill believe anything, as long as it bashes the your-all-pee-ons)

[karasz]

At 4/20/03 10:19 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: if the united states helps the Middle East evolve to a level where it can compete industrially with the world, who loses the most out of it: Europe! With the united states demolishing medieval economies and rebuffing them with cash and technology, the European nations will be at a distinct disadvantage. Oil + Technology+young workforce-mullahs=a limitless potential of trading power. Am i off?

and with economic power comes military power... and with 50% of the mideast being 14 and younger the mideast will soon be a power, along with the US, the EU, china, and india... WOAH nelly... should be a fun world in about 20 years... when im W[hite] H[ouse]C[heif] O[f] S[taff]... shit...

[NEMESiSZ]

At 4/20/03 11:12 PM, karasz wrote: why wouldnt the Iraq be part of OPEC??? OPEC can control oil prices in europe and south korea/japan... 2 areas very important to the US (traditionalist theory) SO if the US can influence more votes the better off the US is...

1 - You don't understand what OPEC is, or the USA's opinion on it.

2 - How could Iraq being part of an oil cartel be better for the USA than Iraq being a country too afraid to sell oil at anything higher than $5 a barrel exclusively to the USA?

[karasz]

At 4/21/03 12:44 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote:

At 4/20/03 11:12 PM, karasz wrote: why wouldnt the Iraq be part of OPEC??? OPEC can control oil prices in europe and south korea/japan... 2 areas very important to the US (traditionalist theory) SO if the US can influence more votes the better off the US is...

1 - You don't understand what OPEC is, or the USA's opinion on it.

well lets see, if the US isnt getting any oil... and ONLY a US company (HALLIBURTON) has the contract to fix all the oil refineries y would halliburton want to sell oil to the US allies for cheap???

2 - How could Iraq being part of an oil cartel be better for the USA than Iraq being a country too afraid to sell oil at anything higher than $5 a barrel exclusively to the USA?

cuz the oil doesnt go to the USA... if iraq was going to sell the oil to the US THEN all of ur flaming on those that said the war 'was for oil' is hypocritical, since u just said that Iraq would sell the oil to the USA for cheap...

so which is it nemmy, are u a hypocrit OR wrong???

[Nightshadeplus]

The only things that the US needs is cheap oil and obedient Arabs. OPEC wants a "stable" oil market so it can maintain a fair share of profits (i.e. have complete control over the supply and demand of oil by ignoring quotas and making it rich while oil prices are high). The US will serve its interests being the biggest oil-consuming nation in the world by any means necessary including playing "allies," such as Russia, the EU and members of OPEC off one another to secure cheap oil to power the US juggernaut. Iraq will no longer be a part of OPEC for reasons Nemmy has already said earlier. But what difference does it make? Every member in OPEC sells more oil than the cartel agrees members to do.

[NEMESiSZ]

No, OPEC is a cartel that wants a monopoly on Oil prices, and a foothold in the United States' foreign policy because of Oil dependancy, since the USA defeated Iraq, the USA most likely will no longer need to buy oil through OPEC, or even Mexico, anymore.

[Slizor]

Am i off?

Yes. A High-tech Middle east would not only compete with europe but with the US as well.

[RUDE]

Wha tis more important to ask yourself is, what will happen in the middle east now. The dethroning of saddam will now bring a new light to the whole of the middle east, Iraq can now be taken seriously as a middleeastern nation alongside other oil rich prosperous countries like Saudi Arabia, whats more important to observe is the ultimate problem between Palestinia and Israel. If this problem can(I think that it will)eventually be resolved I think that it will mark a new beginning for the middle east. As for Iraq goes, the rebuilding can now begin, as far as the leader goes, I think that whoever it is will be better than Saddam, he won''t be the leader for the next 30 years becasue the people will have the oppurtunity to vote.

[karasz]

At 4/21/03 11:23 AM, NEMESiSZ wrote: No, OPEC is a cartel that wants a monopoly on Oil prices, and a foothold in the United States' foreign policy because of Oil dependancy, since the USA defeated Iraq, the USA most likely will no longer need to buy oil through OPEC, or even Mexico, anymore.

so then the war was FOR oil...

ok... ur a hypocrit...

[NEMESiSZ]

How am I a "hypocrite," when have I ever said the USA isn't entitled to Iraqi oil once the USA defeats Saddam?

[NJDeadzone]

At 4/21/03 12:02 PM, Slizor wrote:

Am i off?

Yes. A High-tech Middle east would not only compete with europe but with the US as well.

I was only talking about Europe's new threat or sleeping threat in the Middle East. At least the US has some friendly competition in the not so distant future.

[karasz]

At 4/21/03 01:30 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: How am I a "hypocrite," when have I ever said the USA isn't entitled to Iraqi oil once the USA defeats Saddam?

if the US is entitled to Iraqi oil after the war... THAT MEANS THE WAR WAS FOR OIL...

[NEMESiSZ]

At 4/21/03 04:06 PM, karasz wrote: if the US is entitled to Iraqi oil after the war... THAT MEANS THE WAR WAS FOR OIL...

By your logic, an american solider taking a watch off a dead iraqi soldier would make it "A WAR FOR TIME PIECES."

But I'll ignore that little inconsistency for now, and just say: when have I ever said oil was not a justified reason for war?

[Nightshadeplus]

I always thought that the oil was icing on the cake. To me, I think the US liberation (or invasion, whatever you prefer) of Iraq was a matter of pride than anything else. If Bush didn't take out Saddam sometime during his term, people might think that he was as weak or uncommitted as Clinton was.

[karasz]

At 4/21/03 04:55 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote:

At 4/21/03 04:06 PM, karasz wrote: if the US is entitled to Iraqi oil after the war... THAT MEANS THE WAR WAS FOR OIL...

By your logic, an american solider taking a watch off a dead iraqi soldier would make it "A WAR FOR TIME PIECES."

first off touche... best fucking reply to 'the war is for oil' accusation ever... kudos

But I'll ignore that little inconsistency for now, and just say: when have I ever said oil was not a justified reason for war?

yeah, i did a quick search and found nothing... so shut up...

damn good reply though...

[EvilGovernmentAgents]

At 4/23/03 02:21 AM, Nightshadeplus wrote: I always thought that the oil was icing on the cake. To me, I think the US liberation (or invasion, whatever you prefer) of Iraq was a matter of pride than anything else. If Bush didn't take out Saddam sometime during his term, people might think that he was as weak or uncommitted as Clinton was.

To be honest, I always thought that way too.