Can't say that I blame them.
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis on Friday welcomed U.S. and British moves to lift U.N. economic sanctions but called for the United Nations or an Iraqi interim government to take charge of the nation's oil wealth, not Washington.

The United States and Britain are pushing a proposal to lift nearly 13 years of sanctions and give them control of the Iraq's oil revenues for at least a year.

'It is a good initiative that should have taken place a long time ago,' said Ragheb Naaman, 43. 'But we don't accept that the revenues be controlled by the United States and Britain.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=1276&e=1&u=/nm/20030509/wl_nm/iraq_mood_dc

It's something that's long overdue, but had to wait till the iraqi idiot & sons were gone.

Well, they need a government before they take over the cash.

OH!!! Perfect place for this: Is this really Democratic? (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/05/1051987658285.html)
Let's hope they don't get a government this way.

"We're not fighting for oil"

(Quote from every right wing jingoist out there)

They did have to wait for Sadam and his little turds to be gone. One more thing France, Russia And Germany didn't want to lift sanctions, U.S. and Britain are the ones who pushed for it.

I was expecting you guys to weigh in on this one.

Amerikkka is ASKING FOR THE RIGHTS TO IRAQ'S OIL.

This is exactly what you guys said was not happening in Iraq.

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS ONE AWAY?!

Getting a little excited, there, Ed? In any case, yes, America is asking for the rights to Iraq's oil, but Iraq isn't having it.

Their true motivations will prove themselves it time(even though we already know them, HA!)

The whole country has been liberated by the US and Britain. While their motives weren't completely pure, they did have a lot of good will. (And if you're going to be dominated by any country for a while, these two would have to be the best choice!)

The UN piss-farted around for years, and certain of its member states did all they could to stop the move to war, effectively siding with Saddam Hussein. I can understand how many Americans and Poms must be feeling more than a tad miffed with this snub. It's pretty depressing, actually.

Indeed!

This is exactly what the right wing freakaziods have been denying the whole time. This along with the WMD farce proves that Bush is no hero.

He's a despot, war monger, and a theif. He stole the election and now Iraq's oil.

I am blown away that none of the usual suspects have shown up in this thread to defend this madness.

Why try to defend it, you won't change your mind. You choose to assume evil motivations for everything Bush does, I choose to assume that his motivations are not evil.

Bush isn't evil, he's just stupid. ::ducks to avoid bottle Havok throws::

LMAO

(And if you're going to be dominated by any country for a while, these two would have to be the best choice!)
OoO! Another "patriot" has appeared. There are more choices than that. How about being dominated by no country for a time, that is a possibility. And no, the US is around one of the worst to have controling you. Them and their stupid economic intrests.

Bush isn't evil, he's just stupid. ::ducks to avoid bottle Havok throws::
Yeah, did you see the Onion's article. Saddam said that Bush was nowhere near as evil as him. And of course he's stupid.

"Patriot", Blib? The guy's from Australia.

Remember now, Blib told us early on that he paid no attention in shcool. How could he know the land down under is not part of the U.S.? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

"Patriot", Blib? The guy's from Australia.
HOLY SHIT, I did not see that. AHHH, brainwashing has SPREAD. Wait, you can still call him a patriot, he included the UK and Australia is still under the British Crown(they pledge allegiance to the king/queen, I've been to England, they are very happy that Australia still likes them).

Remember now, Blib told us early on that he paid no attention in shcool. How could he know the land down under is not part of the U.S.? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Thats not nice, just because I think the US education system SUCKS(hey, I live in Florida under the A+ plan Shrub 2(stole it, ha Borg) instituted), doesn't mean I don't know anything. I just didn't see thats all.

"Thats not nice, just because I ...."


true, but not nice. ok

I am rather partial to calling Jeb "Jebadiah Shrub", but Shrub 2 is fine as well. I didn't invent "Shrub" anyway.

I will take your silence on this issue as a sign of your shame at the fact that we really are trying to get the oil.

You guys made it waaay too easy, though. It was no fun.

The need for an outside entity overseeing the flow of oil from the fields to the distribution centers is probably necessary on a temporary basis. The Iraqi government has been dissolved, down to civil servant level. This news story Key developments in Iraq (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-iraq-developments,0,1256047.story?coll=sns%2Dap%2Dnatio nworld%2Dheadlines), in part relates that some 30,000 former government workers have been banished from further government service. Those workers have to be replaced, which in itself is a daunting task. The sociological impact of what has taken place is being minimalized, or perhaps not considered by some that are fervent in their disparaging views of the situation. The country is in shock. They require the assistance of the entire planet to get back on their feet and once again become contribuiting members of the world wide society. The short term management of their resources to aid in that total rehabilitation is needed until such time that the Iraqis are capeable of doing so independently.
The key is in knowing when the job is completed.

Yes, the collectivist view. Destroy and restore...

Ed, cat got your tongue?

I have nothing new to say. The excuse you put forth was expectable. Wether or not we say we want the oil money for a purpose, we are now trying to claim it. Are we the best one's to control it? Sure. I say that from am Imperialistic standpoint. America should take ove the world (like it's doing now with MTV and McDonalds) and we should stop all war, feed everyone, and give everyone the chance to own shoes.

I disagree with lying and thinking that you're fooling someone (not any of you right wing pinheads on this board: I'm talking about GWB and the infamous "them" who run the world from behind the scenes).

Of course they aren't going to come out and say these things but at least you anal pinheads who have so much to say supporting the Right would be honest with yourselves and the rest of us and not have the nerve to deny that we were fighting for the oil in the first place (same as with the first Desert Storm).

It's been my firm belief that winning the Cold War (defined by the fall of the Iron Curtain) was as much by the efforts of Coke, Mc Donald's and Pizza Hut as it was by the unrelenting toe-to-toe posture the US and its Allies maintained militarily. Things could be worse than having the American way of life planet wide, which is what all this boils down to. We like things in this country pretty much the way they are: cheap gas, 7-11 on nearly every corner, plenty of everything. Something wrong with that?

I love 7-11 on every corner.

Those of us who point directly at the "Shock and Awe" epic and say "Bush Jr is going after the oil" were labled goof balls by conservatives who see Bush Jr as some kind of hero.

The right wing cheerleaders defended the "war" on the the premise that it was about FREEDOM (DANMIT)!

*National Anthem swells in the background*

Go to war. Take the oil. Stop perpetrating. GWB ain't gonna say it out loud but you anonymous internet guys have nothing to gain by towing the company line (or the government line). It just make you look silly when they actuallly go in and ask for the oil anyway.

Maybe the end result is about oil. Kick the iraqi idiot out, send his entire force of civil servants in different directions, put the entire region in shock, establish a new 'friendly' gov't, drop all the trade restrictions, get the best & brightest handling the petroleum so the Iraqis can fund their own rehabilitation, and maybe in the U.S. the price of gas goes down a few cents. Still think it's only about oil?

Definately.

There's alot of evil regimes in the world. Are we going to oust them all?

(Probably just the ones rich in resources.)

Originally posted by Ed Blank
Definately.

There's alot of evil regimes in the world. Are we going to oust them all?

(Probably just the ones rich in resources.)

Or maybe just the ones that can be changed relatively easily. Or should we not try to change any of them for the better unless we're prepared to change all of them?

Some people consider America's government an evil regime. Is it okay for them to come and killl Americans and try to change us?

We are not really interested in making the world a better place. That's Superman's gig. We are about bettering America. We fight for self-seving reasons (every being on the planet does).

Admit it.

Why are we sending all that money to Africa? Oh that's right they have a secret American Army that is going to help us take over the world. Aren't we the ones that invented superman?

Originally posted by mad dog
Why are we sending all that money to Africa? Oh that's right they have a secret American Army that is going to help us take over the world. Aren't we the ones that invented superman?


We fight (i.e. kill people, blow things up) for self serving reasons.

Yeah, we invented Superman in 1938.

Originally posted by Ed Blank
We fight (i.e. kill people, blow things up) for self serving reasons. Yes Ed we do. Every battle that has ever been fought in history has been over self serving reasons. What is your point?

My point is:

What we did in Iraq was for U.S. not the Iraqi people.

We did not oppose Sadaam to free anything except the oil.