News What's the truth behind these rumors about the US and Iraq?

[Greg Bernhardt]

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

 

[Zero]

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.

 

[Kerrie]

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...

 

[N_Quire]

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).

 

[Nicool003]

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.

 

[damgo]

- 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.

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by Kerrie

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...

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.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
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

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, 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.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Alias
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.

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...

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by Kerrie
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...

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.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Zero
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.

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.

 

[amp]

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.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by amp
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.

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.

 

[damgo]

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

 

[kat]

Originally posted by damgo
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

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.

 

[kyleb]

i think "needs" is a poor choice of words there, especially considering the corruption that runs rampant in those little inner-circles.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by kyleb
i think "needs" is a poor choice of words there, especially considering the corruption that runs rampant in those little inner-circles.

"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??

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Alias
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.

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.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
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

Ignoring the details I think it should be apparent that whatever government takes power in Iraq it will be pro US. To paraphrase something I actually heard on the major network news a few days ago; US oil companies are the best ones suited to take charge after the war is over. They have the money and expertise, etc…
I had to shake my head when I heard that one, haha.

I’ll be honest, if the world had to be controlled by a single country then I’d prefer that country be the United States. I just don’t believe that it does is all.

New World Order;
The United States is the New World, and they will be giving the orders…

 

[kyleb]

Originally posted by kat
"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??

exactly; but i can see how i might feel differently if i was under the impression that only people in leadership positions have the aptitude to be in leadership positions.

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Alias, depending on which source of disinformation and propaganda someone prefers to accept as unquestioned fact...

I'm going to let that one go. Anyways, cheer up. Sometimes it's ok to say that the glass is half full rather than half empty.

"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

So you(Saddam) might have a land demarcation problem with your neighbor. So I say, "I have no opinion." Does it then become okay for you to trespass and murder your neighbor? No. And if you do, is it my fault? No. Might I kick your butt out and put you on a short leash if you can't behave in a civilized manner? I might. Might I later realize that you are a worthless piece of crap and aren't worth wasting a leash on, and decide to tear your playhouse down? Sounds like a great idea.

 

[BoulderHead]

I'm going to let that one go. Anyways, cheer up. Sometimes it's ok to say that the glass is half full rather than half empty.

Alias,
Sorry if that came across as a personal attack. I meant for it to paint a broad stroke across the majority of people in this world, not simply to single you out in particular.
People argue over sources not just ‘facts’ and usually find someone to begin following blindly. Look at the spokespeople for political parties and watch how they behave. Each side attacks the other while tending to ignore their own deficiencies. I think they are disturbed. Read my sig. quote for the bottom line on how I feel about them.

So you(Saddam) might have a land demarcation problem with your neighbor. So I say, "I have no opinion." Does it then become okay for you to trespass and murder your neighbor? No. And if you do, is it my fault? No. Might I kick your butt out and put you on a short leash if you can't behave in a civilized manner? I might. Might I later realize that you are a worthless piece of crap and aren't worth wasting a leash on, and decide to tear your playhouse down? Sounds like a great idea.

The point that Saddam is a scumbag is not lost on me, and I included a bit of dialog to show that he was playing games too. Nevertheless, Ambassadors are charged with representing the political interests of their respective countries and if they have questions as to policy the answers come from 'above'. If they go against policy here’s what can happen;

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-brf-war-chile-diplomat.story

How does Glaspie state that “WE” (on the behalf of George the Elder) consider it an Arab-Arab matter, only to be so utterly wrong when Bush later starts a war over the matter? I understand that April Glaspie was later ordered not to speak of this matter. Why did she not explain the great importance the US places not only on the region but also on respect for National boundaries? Wouldn’t that have been the more prudent approach to take?

 

[Alias]

Certainly. But what does the boneheadedness of George the First and Glaspie have to do with the current situation?

As for the other issue about what is true and what is not, it's a tough one. For example we could say that only those that were present at an event are qualified to comment. But then we have to get the facts first hand. Anything else becomes hearsay. But when you do this, you start down the slippery slope of the existentialist bullcrap like, "Well how do you know that you really exist?". We all have to make assumptions about the quality of sources and the information we get from them, but if you're not careful you end up lumping everything into some conspiracy theory and I have to start defending the fact that we went to the moon.

If Saddam is not an evil SOB that deserves to die, we have made a terrible mistake. If he is, things couldn't be going much better.

 

[Zero]

Alias, are you saying that we shoudl bomb a country because of one man, and ANYTHING is justified in order to remove him?

 

[Alias]

If 5% of Saddam's bad press is correct, that's enough. And we haven't resorted to ANYTHING just yet. In fact, I recall a previous discussion between us about whose lives are worth more, the civilians or soldiers. Well I hope you're happy, we're going out of our way, shedding blood and giving up lives to preserve the lives of Iraqi civilians.

 

[kyleb]

oh come on, if it is only 5%, then there are much more deserveing targets all over the place.

 

[Alias]

It's as easy as 1, 2, 3!

C'mon kids! All together now!

ONE!

It is highly probable that he has WMDs, specifically biological agents, and he can not be trusted to possesses them or control the security of them.

TWO!

He has been hiding them for 12 years and refuses to come clean and give them up after having numerous chances to do so.

THREE!

We are capable of taking them from him, thereby eliminating the threat that he may use WMDs or sell them, or have them stolen from him, and we can do so with minimal loss of life.

-----

This situation does not exist anywhere else. That is why Iraq, and not North Korea or any other place for that matter.

When are you going to get it?

Forget the countless other accusations of murder and brutality Saddam is alleged to have committed. Forget the liberation of the Iraqi people, brutalized for the last 30 years. These are moral rationalizations for war.

The real reason for war is as easy as 1, 2, 3!

 

[damgo]

1) Sure. More likely chems, IMO -- he's used those suckers before -- but whatever. Well, except for the 'control the security of them' part... he's done a good job of that so far.

2) Yup.

3) Hmm... well, he never bothered us with them before, despite given the chance. Maybe he feared the inevitable massive retaliation? Deterrence and all that? If we try and kill him and take them away, though, that sort of leaves him with no reason not to use them on us. At least that's what the CIA says: http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-14-02.html

 

[FZ+]

IMHO, IF Saddam had WMDs, they are already out of Iraq. (Since if he had them, they must be mobile enough to avoid the weapons inspectors) Well, I 'll stay away from major cities in the next few months if I were you.
Indeed, Saddam is very likely to have already left in the confusion of the war...