Who should help out w/ Iraq when the regime falls?
 

Just wondering... this has been a hot topic on the news lately.

France, Germany and a couple other countries are going nuts over this. They are demanding on being a big part of the reconstruction of Iraq in conjunction w/ the UN.

I don't have anything against the UN, but it's not like their countries are helping at all (i.e. France, Germany....) and they didn't even WANT to help us...while the British and U.S. are using all resources possible to make this happen. The UN didn't help us, and yet they want a big part in the reconstruction???

Maybe it's just because I'm not in a great mood today...:confused:

The U.S. is wanting to reconstruct alone (from the news reports I heard). I think the U.S. has already done enough (negatively speaking) and should let the U.N. handle the reconstruction.

The U.S should have nothing to with reconstruction except maybe sending money to other countries to do it. This war is seen as colinal agression and we don't need any more enemies.

From what little I understand, countries such as France have a deep vested interest in the Iraqi reconstruction. They had huge contracts with Iraqi oil that were key factors in not wanting this war to happen and wanting to be involved when the contracts are re-written. I'm sure someone here will have more information on this....

Re: Who should help out w/ Iraq when the regime falls?
 

Maybe I'm selfish, but countries that refused to help fix the problem should have NO say in how Iraq is reconstructed. I'm not saying that the US should go it alone; but, since the US and Britain put the most involvement in, they should be the ones with the large part in the reconstruction in conjunction with the UN.

The United Nations should take the leading role. The various NGOs should also be consulted in order to create a strong infrastructure. Contracts should be given to the best companies, no matter which country they are from. Different countries should give support to the UN through peacekeeping forces and donating money and having their nationals who have particular expertise work in Iraq. Multilateralism at its best and its the only option if we want the world to be a better place.

Re: Re: Who should help out w/ Iraq when the regime falls?
 

I completely agree with you.

France should have very little to do with the reconstruction of Iraq, if they have any involvement at all.

And the U.S. has NOT done enough. Meaning, they're part in this does not end with the end of the war. We need to help rebuild Iraq, and since we (and the British) are the ones destroying this terrible regime, we should be able to help rebuild their country. It seems to me that we are obligated to help them rebuild, on every level.

When this war is over, we WILL rebuild the country. However, the UN is not going to drive the reconstruction bus... look at what happened in the Balkans. An Office of Iraqi Reconstruction has already been formed at the Pentagon, though its job really won't ramp up until hostilities cease.

My personal opinion... F*ck the French, the Germans and the Russians... the sonofab*tches don't deserve one crumb out of the pie after they stabbed us in the back.

Amen.

I can name several extremely successful reconstruciton projects that the US has had over the years... France and Germany for example (ironic, isn't it?) among many others. How many has the UN had?

The next speech we have to give in Oral Comm is a persuasive debate over whether or not the USA should lead the effort to rebuild Iraq.

The class was split into four, and we each represent a particular org:

WTO
CIA
NGO
UN
State Dept

I'm have the CIA and I have no idea what to say.

The UN has a specific departement designed to help rebuild countries. It is known as the 'trusteeship council', basically a country is held 'in trust' by the UN and is rebuilt with the help of member nations. It has the 5 permanent members of the Security council at it's head. I would suggest that this organization be the one to rebuild Iraq for the sheer fact that while the US and the UK are the main factors in the war on Iraq, I am not sure how willing they would be to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a country on the other side of the globe (correct me if i'm wrong). An international body would also mean that the interests of the peoples of Iraq are held to be primary, so the no country (France, Germany, Uk, Russia, US, etc) takes advantage of the situation. The council has been dormant since 1994, but is still considered one of the main branches of the UN. for more info: http://www.un.org/documents/tc.htm

I have to agree.... because then it would assuage the fears of the population in the region, in addition to the people of Iraq. The main reason that I am concerned is that through the auspices of the US there are certain "aid" groups that are waiting to help after the war. These are the groups that I see antagonizing an already delicate situation and leading to further bloodshed and perpetuation of violence. A prime example is the Southern Baptist Convention and the Samaritan's Purse.... both are evangelical organizations that have had their "spiritual leaders" make extremely questionable remarks about Islam, and it's adherants. Rev. Jerry Vines of the SBC has said: "Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives ñand his last one was a 9-year-old girl. And I will tell you Allah is not Jehovah either. Jehovah's not going to turn you into a terrorist that'll try to bomb people and take the lives of thousands and thousands of people." While, Rev. Franklin Graham of the SP (who lead Bush's inauguration invocation) has also been quoted as saying "I don't believe [Islam] is a wonderful, peaceful religion." Asked by NBC News on Friday to clarify his statement, he repeated his charge that Islam, as a whole, was evil. "It wasn't Methodists flying into those buildings, it wasn't Lutherans," he told NBC News. "It was an attack on this country by people of the Islamic faith."

If these are the people that have approval to "help" after the war, then I think unfortunately the US would then be laying the seeds for even greater anti-Americanism in the region.

The U.N. needs to step up as international government. This would be a good time for them to do it.

I agree with that. I also think that the U.S. should simply stay out of the restructuring of the gov't and let the U.N. take the lead when the timecomes.

As for France and Germany, they should and I hope do not have any part of it. They have vested contracts and holdings? I don't care...they couldn't help in the war effort to begin with, but now they want a chance at the "spoils of war?" You have got to be kidding me.

Those two countries should be banned from any involvement with Irag after the war is over.

If the idea is to liberate the Iraqi people, then the best company the offered the best price, no matter the origin of the country, should be given the contract which should be dealt with by the United Nations, UNDP, UNICEF, UNHCR, etc.

If the idea is to colonized and instal a viceroy, then only the victor will be the spoiler. So only give the contracts to Australia, UK and US.

If I'm not mistaken, the US has already appointed someone from the military to be the new leader of the country while things are being settled...his name was in the Boston Globe today, but it escapes me...

Yes, who should be be the Rebuilders of Iraq?

The USA, and its few Coalition members who are over there losing their lives.

Why should we want to do this? Well, it is always what we do! It cost the Ameican people economically for this! But, We as Americans feel that it is the best thing to do! Let, these people live a normal life without fear of being killed on the spot for what they beleive in!

The U.N. is a damn joke just like the Leauge of Nations was back when Calvin Coolidge started it, In Brussels by the way!

Should the USA contrators get money to rebuild this country and the Coalitions contractors get money to rebuild this country?

Yes, we destroyed it or portions of it!

Has there been precision Bombings to destroy Sadamit Huss-en and the butchers of thousands of people. Could the whole of citys been leveled with all of the people in them?

Is there collatoral damage been done( Civilians ) yes, why, because these chickenshits used civilians as sheilds!

I would not give any country contracts to help rebuild any damn thing! Why should they reap the befits from the poor people who were killed and did nothing to show support!

I am done, do gooders make me sick and I am not an evil person!

How would YOU LIKE TO LIVE THERE? HA!

Dont rip off the people (US) that are going to have to pay for rebuilding this piece ot S**ts country for what he did

I do get very offended when I become the ugly American who have my men and women dieing to save them!

If any disagree, then, you can kiss my Butt!

If you remeber, there Coa;ition Troops Tying to save things that went back to what the bible talke about!

Any History majors on here?

KSKID, yea your right, there is a Military of current and retired members who are in place to do this as an interim Govt.

From what I gather the Loyal Opposition Member who is bing apponited is not all that well like either!

Hell, I wished Georg Patton whas still alive!

...and this would have never happened if Strom Thurmond had been elected president.

***

sorry, I couldn't help but say that! :p

Who will be footing the bill for rebuilding? The US and Britain for the most part. Why then should French, Russian, etc companies get US Dollars to build something like that? Hell they sold the Iraqis the weapons they used to oppress these people!

I think it's despicable that they are hovering around like vultures wanting a piece of this pie.

Amen!

Check this one out...
 

LUKoil cut out of Iraqi oil field


No. 1 oil major LUKoil's dreams of being the lead operator of a vast Iraqi oil field have been slapped back because Baghdad is fuming over Russia's support for the United Nations campaign to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime, a top LUKoil executive said Sunday.

LUKoil's vice president for production and the leading architect of the $3.7 billion Iraqi deal, Dzhevan Cheloyants, said in a telephone interview that the Baghdad government's surprise move last week to break off its accord with the company on the West Qurna field was part of a tense political game and would be righted in international courts.

"This is pure politics. The Iraqis are trying to raise a lot of noise because they are not happy with Russia's position on the UN Security Council," Cheloyants said.

"No Iraqi government, either old or new, can legally unilaterally break the contract," Cheloyants said, adding that the government in Baghdad was well aware that a provision of the contract made clear it could only be scrapped through a decision of an international court.

In an interview with Reuters on Sunday, LUKoil president Vagit Alekperov echoed the claim that politics were behind the move, saying "there were no economic grounds" for breaking off the contract. And the Foreign Ministry slammed the Iraqi government's decision as "running counter to the friendly nature of Russian-Iraqi relations."

But Iraqi's oil minister, Amir Muhammad Rasheed, hastened on Sunday to reassure Russia it was not breaking off ties with all Russian oil companies and could yet offer the West Qurna field to another Russian company. Rasheed said Russia remained "an important economic partner" and "a very important friend for Iraq."

The move came amid the strongest indications yet LUKoil had been negotiating directly with the United States for guarantees it would retain its stake in the field in a post-Hussein regime. Analysts said Sunday these negotiations could have been the final straw for Saddam, who has watched its former ally strengthen ties with Washington in the wake of Sept. 11 and then back the Bush administration in a UN Security Council vote last month that left the way open for a U.S. attack against his regime.

Russian oil majors have feared for months now they could lose their leading edge in Iraq's vast oil patch, which contains the second biggest reserves in the world, to richer U.S. giants if the Bush administration installed a U.S.-friendly regime following a successful attack.

Russia has long been Iraq's biggest trading partner, enjoying the benefits of being Hussein's biggest supporter on the Security Council. Russia has won more than 40 percent of contracts to export Iraqi oil under the oil-for-food program since it was installed in 1996. And LUKoil's 1997 contract to develop the West Qurna field, which is expected to produce 600,000 barrels per day, had been the biggest deal signed by any international oil major in Iraq so far with an estimated worth for LUKoil of $20 billion.

In the first confirmation LUKoil has been talking directly to the United States to gain guarantees, Cheloyants said Sunday that leading LUKoil executives met with U.S. senators just over a week ago to discuss the issue.

"They [the senators] said Russia's interests would be protected in Iraq," he said. "Since LUKoil is a Russian company that means LUKoil's interests."

Alekperov also met with U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Kyle McSlarrow on Nov. 22, but LUKoil would not confirm Sunday whether guarantees for the contract were discussed at that meeting.

"It turns out that the Russian oil magnates have been negotiating with the United States, who is Saddam's potential murderer, for a piece of the man's property when he is dead," said Sergei Markov, a Kremlin-connected political analyst.

The Iraqi government's move came just days after Nikolai Tokarev, the head of Zarubezhneft, a state-owned oil company with substantial interests in Iraq, alleged in an interview with Vremya Novostei that several Russian companies had taken up U.S. proposals to finance the Iraqi opposition in return for guarantees. He said Zarubezhneft had declined such proposals as "dishonorable." He did not, however, name the companies undertaking such deals.

He was unavailable for further comment Sunday. Zeb Sethna, an adviser to a leading Iraqi opposition movement, the Iraqi National Congress, which has support in Congress and the Pentagon, denied in a telephone interview last week that the organization had received any financial support from Russian oil companies and said no contacts had been made.

Following a press conference Sunday, the Iraqi ambassador to Russia, Abas Khalaf, told reporters Baghdad had no concrete information such talks had been taking place. He did say, however, that if these negotiations had been conducted "Iraq would not welcome this ... if these companies are working against our country."

In another sign LUKoil had been singled out, however, he said the other Russian companies, Zarubezhneft and Mashinoimport, were not affected by Iraq's decision. Only LUKoil was to be pushed out of the deal, he said. LUKoil controlled 68.5 percent of the field, with the rest divided between the other two companies.

He said Iraq had canceled the contract purely for business reasons. He said the move came following years of warnings to LUKoil it was not meeting the conditions of its contract, but he did not specify which. LUKoil has said it could not develop the West Qurna field because a UN embargo against Iraq means such activity is against international law.

"We value our reputation," Cheloyants said Sunday. " We made clear that we would not and shall not violate the UN embargo." He rejected Khalaf's claims that LUKoil had not met the conditions of the contract by not developing the field. "Everything that is written in the contract [on extraction and investment] is only valid when the embargo is lifted," he said.

Khalaf said the Iraqi government would be ready to support its move against LUKoil should the company carry out its intention to defend its contract in an international arbitration court in Geneva.
(The Moscow Times 16.xii.02)

I know the Pentagon has opened an office of Iraqi Reconstruction and appointed a civilian to head the post, but if you're looking for a military governor, chances are it would probably be Deputy CENTCOM commander Lt. General John Abizaid, who is of Arabic descent and speaks the language fluently. Abizaid was Commandant of Cadets at West Point a few years back.

The 'baby' general who does the CENTCOM press briefings is Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, also a Woo Poo grad ('80) and the first black First Captain (the top cadet commander) of the Corps of Cadets. His older brother is currently Commandant of Cadets.

Yep, they have oil, but for long will it last?

We all a have Oil, how long will it last?

Onlyb a question!!!

Got to go to bed as am getting old!

Didn't WE also sell the Iraqis weapons that they later used to oppress these people? I don't think that's legitimate criteria to ban them from the rebuilding process.

I don't think they should be allowed to, though. I think things could get pretty messy pretty quick if they were.

How about the French who provided them with technology and material to build a nuclear reactor (which Israel so kindly took care of for us in the early 90's)? How about the replacement parts for their *Mirage* fighter jets sold to them while there was an international embargo?

Russian companies sold them the equipment that they used to use to manufacture chem/bio weapons. Where do you think the T-72 tanks came from? They were purchased *after* Gulf War I.

Comparing the US to those two is apples to oranges. We're also cleaning up this mess that we helped to create (not by ourselves though). I will not be one bit surprised to see find that France and Russia have known about the chem/bio weapons all along and have been worried that the rest of the world would find out (pure speculation on my part but not too far-fetched).

Considering that we still have no proof of chemical or biological weapons, I think you're jumping the gun a bit on that last point. :p

As for comparing apples to oranges, I don't really think so. Russia and France gave weapons to Iraq? So did we. Either way, those weapons were used in similar fashions. Not one of the three countries is blameless in its role in "oppressing the Iraqi people," as you mentioned before, and whether the weapons were handed over before or after the Gulf War doesn't mean they were any less (or more) "oppressive." I don't think that's a legitimate reason to keep Russia or France out of Iraq.

I think a far more reasonable point is simply that they didn't want to get involved when there was risk, so why should they be allowed to get involved after the risk is gone? You don't put something in, you shouldn't get anything out.

Actually it was US companies that supplied them with the components to Bio/Chem weapons.... I believe back in the early 80s.... before Saddam gassed the Kurds. I believe the US is so adamant that Iraq has these weapons, is because quite frankly, US companies have the recipts ;)

Re: Re: Who should help out w/ Iraq when the regime falls?
 

I agree, screw the U.N., let them pass a resolution first and then we'll talk. Screw france, they speak french anyway. Screw germany, they are friends with the french. Screw Russia, eh, well Russia is alright, they can help;)

RUgreek

There's a difference in my mind in supplying these things not knowing the guy's history in the 80's and supplying him with them in the 90's.

umm... they didn't stop supplying... even after the first Gulf War; check out some of the congressional hearings into the violation of the UN sanction by some US companies. They did a whole weeklong special on the history of US relations with Iraq here on the CBC.... don't think you guys get it down there.