>>>A recent post inspired this...
>>>
>>>According to author Lynne Franks, SEED stands for
>>>"Sustainable Enterprise and Empowerment Dynamics".
>>>
>>>When the Iraqi leadership booby-trapped and set fire to
>>>their oil fields it was about SEED or keeping the US from
>>>taking advantage of the Iraq economy. Oil has been Iraq's
>>>sole or main enterprise and has allowed the country, as well
>>>as other "Arab" countries to become empowered in the global
>>>economic and external power dynamic.
>>
>>In the extreme -- as if I just heard you say 2 + 2 = 5.
>>
>>The Iraqi Leadership could care less about the overall Iraqi
>>economy, (or more importantly the people) I suggest you
>>speak to some Iraqi's to get a better picture.......in any
>>event, during the last 12 or so years of the UN Embargo --
>>Iraq has been selling Oil to the US (and other countries)
>>the whole time -- instead of using that money to feed its
>>people, they pocketed the Money (Saddaam is one of the
>>world's richest people) and let the people starve in order
>>to gain political leverage, as if to say: "Look at our
>>economy, its ruined because of the Embargo).
>>
>>Fact remains, they had the money to feed those people the
>>whole time, so its not like they give a damn about the
>>economy or the people.
>
>M2...i am sure you are well aware that under the oil for
>food program, it is teh US who has been pocketing more of
>the money..and not the Iraqi leadership.
>
>between january 1997 and the end of 2000, iraq sold
>$40billion worth of oil. all of the money was deposited into
>an account and controlled by the UN. only 9.6 billion, less
>than 25 percent of the revenue, was distributed to Iraq to
>purchase food and medicine.
>
>the UN took 13.6 billion (34percent) to compensate the
>kuwaiti monarchy (an already mega rich monarchy one might
>add) and other victims for the 1991 war. in 2000, 200
>million of funds to purchase food for starving iraqis was
>givien to exxon/mobil. the corporations was listed among the
>'victims' of iraq's 1990 invasion of kuwait.

1. You don't honestly Believe that Saddaam is following UN rules to the letter and not generating money elsewhere do you? He finds money to build statues......

2. Just based on your example - 9.6 Billion is a TON of money - and I'm sure some food is produced domestically. A better question is, how much of that money was actually spent on food.

3. Considering Saddaams vast personal fortune (in the Billions) -the money coming in (He could've always asked to sell more to buy food -- but I never heard of anyone petitioning for that, just to get the embargo lifted all together)






>>
>>The reason that Oil prices went up in advance of the war, is
>>because of the concern that the supply would be reduced due
>>to the fact that we wouldn't buying Iraqi Oil during the
>>war, also that it would be harder to get oil from the middle
>>east, etc, etc. You should read the Wall St. Journal and
>>similar business publications --- those are the concerns
>>that have been voiced.
>>
>>Ousting Saddaam isn't going to get us Cheaper Oil, because
>>Oil prices are set by OPEC and we're not taking over the
>>country and wouldn't be taking ownership of the oil.
>>
>
>you are partly correct in that assumption. however, if you
>will recall from gulf war 1, the kuwaitis drove the oil
>price down to below opecs set price at the insistence of the
>US government in an attempt to destroy an iraqi economy that
>was recovering from the iran/iraq war. so although opec
>sets prices, those prices arent always followed to the
>letter.

Good Point -- but would that be the case here? How long would it last, what Oil Companies would be affected, etc.

>>Furthermore, it hurts the Iraqi people to set fire to the
>>oil wells, because the next leader may be more generous than
>>Saddaam and his cronies and Oil will be the basis of Iraq's
>>Post War Economy, which will undoubtedly benefit more people
>>than the current one does.
>>
>>Furthermore, the US would be a customer to Iraq's oil
>>industry and would pump billions more into it than we
>>currently do (The Embargo limits how much oil Iraq can
>>currently sell).
>>
>>So how is that an instance of the US "taking advantage"?
>
>well..because with the way iraq currently sells its oil, and
>was intending to do so before the war, the us could not be a
>customer unless they paid for it in euro dollars as oppossed
>to US dollars. so now, with the new regime that 'may' be
>installed, im sure that will change.

That's kinda irrelevant - the value of the Euro is set to match that of the US dollar, it doesn't always happen since sometimes the Euro is below the US dollar and sometimes its above, but its a minor issue, since US companies purchase quite a few things in Euro-Dollars (or in other currencies) - the war wasn't started just so we could purchase Oil in Euros.



>>
>>They're setting fire to the Oil Wells, because THEY won't be
>>able to take advantage of them anymore, they're not trying
>>to save the Iraqi people or the Iraqi economy, they're just
>>hurting it.
>>
>
>there has been no proof that iraq has set fire to its oil
>wells in this war. iraq has dug oil filled trenches, and set
>them ablaze as a means of stopping coalition advances, but
>if you have been following this there is no proof of any
>wells being set to flames.

I'm merely referring to the example Nettrice gave.......if the Oil Wells aren't on fire, then so be it......my response to Nettrice's original post still stands.......

>>In pure economic/financial/business terms - setting fire to
>>the Oil Wells isn't helping the Iraqi people or its economy
>>-- its the Political/Economic equivalent of taking one's
>>toys and going home.
>>
>>Look at other Arab countries like Kuwait or the UAE or a
>>country like Brunei -- these are rich Oil countries where
>>the money generated by Oil is invested into the people, they
>>have free health care, education and no one goes hungry.
>>
>
>please see above.

Okay - address how little Iraq invests in its people compared to other oil rich companies, even before 91'

>>I would agree with you if Iraq was one of those countries,
>>but it isn't -- after the first war, Saddaam spent Millions
>>commissioning statues to celebrate his Victory - while
>>people starved.
>>
>>But don't believe me, talk to some Iraqis.
>
>there are many others who feel differently. it all depends
>on who you talk to. thats like saying talk to americans
>about how they feel about bush, or the war. you'll get
>6,000,000 diffenent stories.

True -- but many of those Iraqis only receive information from Saddaam who only presents the truth in a way that suits him and at the same time, I can't see them standing up for him if they have all the facts in front of him -- its not like he cares about them.

>>
>>
>>
>>P.S. I'm not in the camp of the Blind Patriots who sees
>>Saddaam as a threat to us,\ that we need to take out, nor do
>>I believe he was involved in 9/11. I also think the loss of
>>life in this conflict is unacceptable, and I question some
>>of the motives leading up to this war, (IF you can even call
>>it that) - I think there are better options available to get
>>rid of Saddaam -- BUT I'm not going to pretend that the
>>Iraqi people wouldn't be better off without him.
>>
>>I'm Ex-Military Guy and I understand the mindset very well
>>-- if the Iraqi people actually believed in their leader or
>>better yet, wanted to fight for him, they wouldn't be
>>surrenndering so easily -- hell some of them tried to
>>surrender before the world started -- and the way the
>>British Soldiers described them, (and based on the footage
>>I've seen) they didn't look like well cared for Soldiers
>>whose leader is one of the richest men on earth.
>
>
>i hope you are following more than you seem to be letting
>on...the 'coalition' ( i use that term very loosely) is
>suffering heavy casualties..and have not even reached
>baghdad where they are certain to take the heaviest
>casualties...the iraqis surrendering have been few in
>number, and wouldnt u surrender if you were surrounded by us
>forces. true not all of sadaams standing army of 285,000 is
>well caref for, but his special republican guard of 125,000
>is very well off, and his elite force of 25,000 in baghdad
>is even better trained, fed, and prepared. this is a war. it
>is now safe to call it that. all you have to do is look at
>the contradicting statements that the administratino is
>issuing. "we have control of the city, we dont have control
>of the city, no americans are missing, some americans are
>missing.."

I wouldn't call the casualties suffered so far as "Heavy" I think each one was unneccessary, but I wouldn't call them heavy and as a Military Guy (Airborne Infantry for that matter) I have a good understanding of what's ahead and I still don't consider this a war.

I read a report this morning that we're only 100 miles from Baghdad -- apparently we've covered 600 miles in a matter of days, in Infantry Terms that's wicked fast. Remember, I did Airborne Infantry and I was originally a Field Artillery Guy and to cover that many miles in so short a time is phenomenonal.

Like Chris Rock said, its not a war, its a Jack.


>unfortunately, this thing is going to get a lot uglier.
>
>i just wish we could turn it all around..but alas its too
>late..its going to take a lot more casualties before we are
>forced into a ceasefire which is essentially a loss because
>the objective of regime change wont be accomplished.

That's not going to happen in this case -- there are a lot of folks in the Military who feel we should've marched on in and taken Baghdad the first time, given a second chance, I doubt our leadership will stop until Baghdad is taken.

There are lot of "capabilities" of our military that you're probably not aware of, that may or may not have been used or may being used right now, but we're not aware of. You're just seeing the "TV War" -- when these other capabilities e.g. Special Forces are fully utilized, or rather when they're utilized against Saddaam's elite Troops in conjunction with what we're already doing, it will get Uglier, but we will take Baghdad.

Also -- about conflicting reports, a lot of them aren't meant to be misleading, they just come from the Battlefield where there is a lot of confusion and people think they see things that they didn't see. So the reports are always off initially.

I know from live-fire excercises that things get hairy and you don't sort it all out until later.



-M2