Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Things I need cleared up

  1. Mar 27, 2003 #1

    Greg Bernhardt

    User Avatar

    Staff: Admin

    I've heard a few things going around and maybe I'm way out of the loop here, but can someone elaborate on this topics:

    - The US will be making Iraq like Puerto Rico
    - The US will fill Iraqi government positions with americans
    - The US has created and funds a corporation owned by Dick Channey to plan a post-Iraq government
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 27, 2003 #2
    I'm sure there is some bit of truth in each of those. What people don't realize is that America is, and has been for a while, the head of an international empire. Instead of political colonialism, however, we practive an economic variant. American companies are already scrambling for contracts to 'rebuild' Iraq. Whatever political autonomy Iraq has post-war will be irrelevant, because American corporations will controll the resourses and trade.
     
  4. Mar 27, 2003 #3

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    i have read a few things that are very similar to these things greg...honestly, i am quite happy you are questioning these "rumors"...i have a flier sitting right here that reads:

    This war is to establish U.S. corporate and politial control over the Middle East. A subsidiary of Halliburton, the firm formerly headed by the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, is one of four US corporations that bid for billion dollar contracts to rebuild and manage Iraqi oil resources.

    if i understand it correctly too, Halliburton has a contract to help fight the oil well fires currently burning as well...someone put me in my place if i am misinformed...

    when our country, one of the most powerful and influential on this earth decides to go to war and sends over ordinary people whose lives will be forever changed, it needs to decide carefully what the true reasons are...in my opinion, this war is not about freedom of the Iraqi people, but about making money...

    i must give credit to my wonderful fiance Mark for bringing me up to his politically savvy standards...
    :wink:
     
  5. Mar 27, 2003 #4
    Might it not be a case of if you're going to fight and win a war you are not going to hand rebuilding contracts to companies and organizations that weren't part of the fight, ie I can't see the US wanting French companies in on the pie-sharing. Already, Colin Powell has said the UN can forget about running a postwar Iraq.

    I heard on public television that to win some of these contracts you have to comply with anti-abortion clauses they contain. I haven't been able to find anymore info on that but it does seem a ludicrous and ideologically motivated requirement (if it's true, that is).
     
  6. Mar 27, 2003 #5
    I highly doubt we will fill government positions with AMericans. It will most likely be like afghanistan- Being there to help and support nothing more. They have their own president now etc...

    We will probably have represenatives there or maybe just an embassy like in other countries.
     
  7. Mar 27, 2003 #6
    - Puerto Rico? You mean make it a US territory? I don't think even Dubya is that foolish.

    - The current plan is a US transition administration, then US-chosen Iraqis. (Just today the administration basically said the UN would get no say.) Barbara Bodine and Jay Garner are the main names being tossed around for the US people; they've picked out some Iraqis, too, but I don't remember their names now.

    - Cheney used to run Halliburton, which just got a ~600+ million contract to rebuild some Iraqi oil infrastructure. No bidding. Some other US companies (like Boots & Coots) were also awarded big contracts with no bidding.
     
  8. Mar 27, 2003 #7
    So let me get this straight Kerrie.

    The US told Saddam to invade Kuwait in 1990 so that we could push him out and station troops in Saudi Arabia, thus pissing off Usama Bin Laden, so that he would fly airplanes into the world trade center towers, the pentagon and wherever else, so that we could declare a war on terror, which meant that all countries with evil dictators could be invaded at the cost of 100's of billions of dollars, so that we could award 10 billion dollar clean up contracts to the company that Dick Cheney used to work for.

    I don't know what to say other than, I am not an idiot, and you are not like me.
     
  9. Mar 27, 2003 #8

    kat

    User Avatar

    It took the US over 100 yrs to make Puerto Rico like Puerto Rico, so I"m not giving that rumor a lot of credence. The other rumor apparently is attempting to transfer Iraq back to the people in the same manner as Japan, which would be wonderful but I think there are some major cultural differences that might make that a no-go without major modification. -AT ANY RATE, :smile: I think any rumors about this are just that, rumours..or rather speculation.

    The U.S. apparently will fill Iraqi government positions with Americans initially, later transfering them to the Iraqi people...presumably through voting? This is another case, I think, that any thing publicly announced on this is mere speculation at this point.

    USAID is awarding contracts for Iraq atm, I'm not sure who's who involved with USAID...and too tired to research it tonight. The link is here, feel free.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2003
  10. Mar 27, 2003 #9

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    so, you are inferring that i am an idiot because i believe this war is about money more then freedom for Iraqi's? i think you need to reread PF guidelines...

    https://www.physicsforums.com/misc/guidelines.html

    this forum is about stating opinions, not flinging insults, as you just implied here...i would suggest you keep your opinions about ME as a person to yourself, and address my opinions as you like...i am insulting no one with my belief that this war is more about wealth from oil over freedom for millions of Iraqi's...
     
  11. Mar 28, 2003 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Mr. Bernhardt, you're not trolling in your own forum, are you?

    One comment on Puerto Rico - they have a complete right of self - determination. Every few years someone starts a referrendum for making them a state, keeping their status, or breaking away and they always keep their status. Its too sweet of a deal to pass up.
     
  12. Mar 28, 2003 #11
    Yes, you are right. I apologize for inferring that you were an idiot. It was childish and unprofessional, not to mention against the rules of this forum. In addition, I will attempt to mature to a level that will allow me to have civil debate, and to not call people names just because I think their opinions are malformed.
     
  13. Mar 28, 2003 #12

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    Well, the US is spending tens of billions
    of dollars on the war. If it can gain it back
    and free the people and win some political
    influence then why not ?

    As for "economic colonialism" - I'd like to say
    that despite the likely optimism of the average
    amirican about the financial status of the US
    things are moving. China and many other east
    asian countries are beginning to rize as
    huge production forces and african countries will
    probably join in in about 2 decades.

    The US needs to take active and very efficient
    measures to remain "on top". If it doesn't, not
    only will it loose its financial status but
    also its status as a super-power within the
    next few decades.

    The times of few democratic countries are
    beginning to pass and as they leave us the
    new democracies, through the freedom given to
    the people to "make" money, are improving their
    economies. (And China, for example, has about 4
    times more people. After all, the US population
    is only about 5% of the world's total.)

    Live long and prosper.
     
  14. Mar 28, 2003 #13

    amp

    User Avatar

    Don't look but...

    rumor has it the even before 9/11, some oil companies wanted to build a pipeline thru Afghanistan, also I read that G.W.B.'s former oil company has first dibs on Iraq's resources once the spoils are divided.
     
  15. Mar 29, 2003 #14

    kat

    User Avatar

    Re: Don't look but...

    Halliburton pulled itself out of the running for bids for this. They've stated that it is too controversial and would effect their contracts with other Arabic countries.
     
  16. Mar 30, 2003 #15
    I came across an article on Jay Gardner today; he's the guy who will be in charge of Iraqi reconstruction and humanitarian aid. Get this: he runs a weapons firm. Anyone else think this is a really, really bad idea?

    US arms trader to run Iraq
    Exclusive: Ex-general who will lead reconstruction heads firm behind Patriot missiles
    http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,925309,00.html
     
  17. Mar 30, 2003 #16

    kat

    User Avatar

    I guess I'd be more concerned if it was lockheed and martin lol

    I think that he has a good track record with the kurd situation in the early 90's....all of these business connections, with all of these men and women in leadership positions are "a concern" but on the other hand it needs to be someone who has those capabilities and the connections that being in that position allows someone. Something that really concerns me is his very, very pro-israel/anti-palestinian stance...he's made some extremely vitriolic comments..his placement will be very much a poke in the eye to the palestinians.
     
  18. Mar 30, 2003 #17
    i think "needs" is a poor choice of words there, especially considering the corruption that runs rampant in those little inner-circles.
     
  19. Mar 31, 2003 #18

    kat

    User Avatar

    "on the other hand it needs to be someone who has those capabilities and the connections that being in that (Leadership) position allows someone"

    So, you don't believe someone who is temporarily leading Iraq "needs" to have Leadership capabilities and the ability to network??
     
  20. Mar 31, 2003 #19
    I had heard that the port contract for Umm Qasr has been awarded to a US company without consultation with the UK. Britain wants Iraqi's to run it and to be honest ... this is probably a good idea. If the Iraqi's don't get to contribute in a significant way to the rebuilding of their country then you are just creating another perfect breeding ground for dissatisfaction with the US, UK and western nations in general. Not a good thing really.
     
  21. Mar 31, 2003 #20
    Alias, depending on which source of disinformation and propaganda someone prefers to accept as unquestioned fact, you might find that something of interest seems to have taken place between then US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, and Saddam Hussein.

    Ambassador April Glaspie benignly, if unwittingly, gave Saddam the green light to punish Kuwait for stealing oil. At the very least, this particular ambassador's appointment demonstrated the flaws in assigning a representative with ethnic and family ties to a country which may have interests incongruous to those of the United States.
    Taken from; http://216.239.39.100/unclesam?q=ca...+glaspie+green+light+to+saddam&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

    "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflict, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."
    April Glaspie (U.S. ambassador to Iraq) to Saddam Hussein, Jul 25, 1990
    Taken from; http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/pgwar/pergul3.htm

    Yet a couple of weeks later (after the invasion) George the Elder had a very strong opinion about this Arab-Arab conflict.

    A different kind of deception was exposed when, on the eve of his invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Husayn promised both President Mubarak of Egypt and US Ambassador April Glaspie that he would not use force until he would have exhausted all other options, most clearly until a high level Kuwaiti-Iraqi meeting in Baghdad took place. Needless to say, Saddam broke his promise. Six years later he again broke his promise to his cousin and son-in-law, General Husayn Kamil: when the latter returned to Baghdad after he was promised clemency, Saddam’s men gunned him down.
    Taken from; http://www.house.gov/reform/ns/schedule_107th_2nd_session/baram_sept_24.htm


    So what does it appear we have here? … An Ambassador who misrepresents the true position of the administration she represents to a dirt-bag dictator. That seems to be the answer, and it brings up the question of WHY this happened. Many people suspect the worst (that it was an intentional set up). I’m not a fly on the wall so I couldn’t swear to you that I knew the reasons one way or the other, but it has a foul smell about it.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Things I need cleared up
  1. Screwed up? i think so (Replies: 9)

  2. Clear Channel (Replies: 61)

Loading...