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

Who has the rights here?

  1. Apr 5, 2003 #1
    Given what this forum Here states, and the stated intent of the US, as ‘liberator’, and “freeing the peoples of Iraq” the question is begged as to whether or not the US has the right to control the rebuilding of Iraq.

    Will the Iraqi people be free to decide the fate of their oil?

    Do they have the right to have it traded in EU Dollars after the ‘rebuild’?

    Who should be the ones deciding?

    The US has already stated that it does not want the UN involved.

    (P.S. That forum’s piece is a very good one, as far as I can tell, and well worth the read!)
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 5, 2003 #2
    well i don't think we have the right to do what we are doing in the moment; so in my book; the sooner we stop claiming the "right" the better. also we need to offer a lot of assistance to the constructive plans of others if we want to get out of this without a whole lot of people being really pissed off. unfortunately, i highly doubt anything of the sort will come to pass any time soon.
     
  4. Apr 5, 2003 #3
    Just Wondering

    Sort of out loud if the people who like to keep telling me that they are all for this war as to Free the Iraqi's of the "Oppressive" Saddam, are actually willing to back up there words, sort of agreeing that the Iraq'i People will definetely be FREE to decide for themselves in which currency they want there oil traded in, EU of American "Greenbacks".

    Sort of like to see there words in writing, ya know, LIBERTY FOR IRAQ!!
     
  5. Apr 5, 2003 #4
    I can't say that I'm pro-war or anti-war because I really don't know the whole story to make a sensible judgement, howver those questions that you have posted are the same questions I have asked and me being the cynical person that I am, I have a feeling this war is more than just "liberating" Iraq.

    But that's just a gut feeling.
     
  6. Apr 6, 2003 #5
    Well, I personally support the war because I think Iraq will be much better off afterwards. But are they really gonna be free... I doubt it. And I am under no illusions that the Bush adminstration is doing this out of their concern for the Iraqi people. Remember, the US government (and Rumsfeld incidentally) supported Saddam in the early 80's, when he was just as scummy as he was today, and when he was actually using his chemical weapons to slaughter Iranians. But then Iraq was our ally against Iran, just as now the Pakistanis and Saudis are our allies now. In another twenty years, who knows what repressive regimes in the region we will be allied with?
     
  7. Apr 6, 2003 #6

    kat

    User Avatar

    At the moment USAID is orchestrating contracts for rebuilding, with USAID funds. So I don't see a problem with those contracts going to U.S. countries. HOWEVER, and this is a big however..Oil money's must continue to go into an Iraqi fund and I believe that is the setup atm, with Annan overseeing funding.

    In order for Iraqi's to be able to decide anything they have to be in a position where they can speak and vote freely. This isn't, nor has it ever been in any country, an overnight event.

    I don't believe that the U.S. said no U.N. involvement, I think it only excluded certain types of involvement. It certianly deserves watching and I have to admit having an unsettling gut feeling that Americans will lose interest in monitoring what it's goverment is allowing in Iraq once the media stops flashing it on tv hour after hour.
     
  8. Apr 6, 2003 #7
    Sadly, even with PM'ing, I've yet to see one person state that they think that Iraqi's are going to be able to decide their own fate, vis a vis the currency that oil is traded in.

    Have any of you any real idea of just how important this issue is, to the American economy??
     
  9. Apr 6, 2003 #8
    well i think the problem is that the Iraqi's are going to be able to decide their own fate, vis a vis the currency that oil is traded in is not important for the American economy. although i know there are many who would say that this is exactly why it is not a problem at all.
     
  10. Apr 6, 2003 #9

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The USA has the right to ensure the safety of its citizens.
    The USA has the right to protect its national interests.

    World peace and stability are required to accomplish above.
    War is necessary when other means fail. Appeasement has always failed.
    Peace inevitably follows war. Stability requires a sustained peace.

    The future Iraqi government will be democratic and maintained as a democracy by the presence of the USA military. This presence may continue for 10-15 years or as long as it takes to insure stability in the region.

    If the government of the USA proceeds in the direction I wish it to, it will place a large contingent of troops on the Iraq1-Syrian border. Syria will be required to remove its military presence from Lebanon. Syria will be required to imprison terrorist groups it now harbors. The Saudis will have to be called to account for their support of terrorists. Its been reported that if the Saudi princes allowed a free election, they would elect UBL as president. In the case of the Saudis, I would enforce a complete ban of oil exports
    Iran, with some covert help from the USA, is likely to align itself with the USA once it achieves a totally secular government. The Palestinians must have a secure and economically viable homeland. Israel must help economically and be much less rigid in its policies. An economic partnership of Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel would be a wonderful thing. N. Korea is not an immediate threat to the USA. It is an immediate threat to its neighbors, who must act in their own self-interest to avoid preemptive action by the USA.

    The UN has proven itself irrelevant and without re-organization will go the way of the League of Nations. A world court, world government or any international body restricting the activities of the USA in protecting its citizens and interests is a complete anathema to me.

    In all matters, the USA will try to proceed in a manner agreeable to the 45 nations who supported us in the war.

    As to those who wish our economy to suffer, it suffices to say that the world’s economy follows ours. Only the terrorists gain.

    Iraqi currency will be tied to the dollar, not the Euro. The Brits have the most viable economy in Europe and may not adopt the Euro. The Euro is tied to the presently failing economies of Germany and France. Why would one wish to rely on the Euro in supporting world wide economic stability?

    Regards
     
  11. Apr 6, 2003 #10
    Yes and yes....but not at the expense of other peoples, other countries.
     
  12. Apr 6, 2003 #11

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well Zero, I would like to agree with you. Other peoples, however, have interests in violent opposition to our interests. What course of action do we follow when peaceful means fail?

    Regards
     
  13. Apr 6, 2003 #12
    well GENIERE, when you think peaceful means fail; then you run around like a terrorist and kill anyone who gets in your way.
     
  14. Apr 7, 2003 #13
    You have to also consider the actions in our interests that have caused negative effects worldwide. Remember, Saddam Hussein is there because America put him there. How many terrorists recieved CIA training?
     
  15. Apr 7, 2003 #14
    Ahhh, mmmmmm, errrrr. I have a hard time dealing with the hardcore, pro-war stance.

    I don't think that anyone believes otherwise. The debatable point is whether Iraq posed a direct threat to US citizens to protect against.

    I know Australia's one but the vast majority of the population of Oz wouldn't agree. The US also has unilateral agreements with other nations which effectively exempt them from being accused of war crimes. Who is manipulating the UN and does the US really care if they do things which are agreeable?

    Agreed.

    Huh???

    What the...???

    I'm in shock and awe???

    I don't usually resort to this and I know that this is not an argument which holds much water, but you are obviously on drugs. Or maybe it's me and your post is all just an hallucination. Seriously, wake up and smell the public opinion.

    In answer to the original questions

    Will the Iraqi people be free to decide the fate of their oil?

    Of course not. The majority of oil will go to the US under rules set down by the US. After they put US contractors in, they will probably change the food for oil program into a oil for rebuilding program.

    Do they have the right to have it traded in EU Dollars after the ‘rebuild’?

    Seems like a fair question. Why anyone should think they they should trade in US dollars is beyond me. The US does not own the world, even though they might hold them to ransom

    Who should be the ones deciding?

    After the disaster of the war, that's a difficult question to answer. Iraq will probably be split into a whole heap of political factions, but should free elections be held then it would be logical that the new Iraqi government do it.

    Raavin
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2003
  16. Apr 7, 2003 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, yes, yes, the US/UK.
    You're hoping for some hypocrisy on this issue? You won't get any from me. This is not to say that you really BELIEVE me...


    OT:
    What part of that quote doesn't hold water? A great many people have stated that the only acceptable way to achieve peace is for the US (and Israel, and pretty much the entire western world) to cease to exist. Raavin, Geniere's post seemed pretty reasonable to me. If you could clarify which part seems to be the result of a drug-induced halucination and why, I'd appreciate it.
     
  17. Apr 7, 2003 #16
    This is quite demagogic. National interests are of course the first priority of a country, but the policy of Iraq is by no means dangerous for the US. This is trivializing the problem.

    Have you ever been in Israel?
    They are really at the focus of fundamentalist terrorism, and they have really reasons to answer like they do, killing the opposite part. If one has not lived in a country continuously struck by terrorism, he will scarcely understand what the fear of terrorism signifies.



    This is funny! Ok, your opinion about the nonbrits is negative, but this should not influence you objectivity.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2003
  18. Apr 7, 2003 #17
    I was actually saying that saying he was on drugs wasn't an argument, but the drug induced reference was based on the quotes I posted. Have a look at them again. You mustn't have read them the first time. The comments range from extreme fantasy to completely missed irony.

    I don't agree with terrorism. It is a horrible thing. The US government is out and proud about it though under the guise of a war against it. It is a frustrating and all too real joke. If the US directed the money they are putting into this war into more helpful programs, maybe we wouldn't have come to this. We could have won the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people long ago. Maybe they would have had the courage to overthrow the government themselves. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, the US is flexing it's muscles to make the rest of the world terrified. What ever you do don't cross the US decision makers. They are nuts. If I was a conspiricy theorist I would almost say that the US government is deliberately putting the US at risk in order to justify it's gradual taking over of the rest of the world. But I'm not, so I won't

    Raavin
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2003
  19. Apr 7, 2003 #18
    oh come on now Raavin, you said it wether you want to claim it or not; and you know it makes sense at that.
     
  20. Apr 7, 2003 #19
    Thanks.....

    Y'alls validated alot of things for me, with your responses, Thanks!

    (Pardon the Y'alls, lazy typist)

    P.S. The US is currently about 45% of the worlds economy, not a majority shareholder, tranferring the price of a barrel of oil to the Euro, changes the manner of international monetary exchanges.

    That is NOT a threat to the US economy, BUT, it could be, watch and see, as it is probably dependant upon several factors which will come into play soon.
     
  21. Apr 7, 2003 #20
    It's very unlike me to resort to name calling. This situation unfortunately reduces me to a childlike state. I sit in complete wonderment at how this situation has arisen for any other reason than American financial interests.

    I saw today that the coalition troops had found a store of chemicals. If the footage they showed was this store, it was basically a shed with 20 or so 44 gallon drums. The soldiers wore gas masks but not chemical suits. How bad could it actually be.

    The WOMD are simply not there. Even if they were, it would seem that there is no way that the Iraqis could deliver them. The Al Samoud missiles that were destroyed before the beginning of the conflict had a range, from memory, 13kms beyond the maximum allowed under the UN charter.

    I saw some footage this morning of Basra, where locals were cheering on the coalition troops. Thank god someone is happy.

    I am no supporter of dictatorships. Especially tyrranical dictatorships, but that is not the reason this war has been waged. It has been waged because the US government is not interested in working with Islamic states to become self sustaining without having control over them, so they need to set up a base within the middle east. The fact that they are weak, that Saddam was not particularly liked by his neighbours, and that they have heaps of oil, is a huge bonus as well.

    If American people want to believe that they are not complicit in an empire building project, or recognise it and think it's a good idea, that is a sad thing. It is also of grave concern to anyone who actually values freedom.

    Like I said before, don't cross the US.

    Raavin
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Who has the rights here?
  1. Who is the terrorist? (Replies: 6)

  2. Who Won, Who lost? (Replies: 27)

  3. Who's on first? (Replies: 1)

Loading...