SkinsNumberOne Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma So where are the people that said this was a war about oil when Bush said last night all the oil is going to the Iraqi people Did he? That's good. Then they can use it to pay for all that expensive reconstruction. No one thinks that we are "robbing" them. We are just getting paid to reconstruct their country. Bush even mentioned this as a difference between Afghanistan and Iraq. I was surprised that he mentioned it, because it made it a "mentionable" - something that was significant enough to say, but I think making it a mentionable takes away some moral high ground. He basically said that a big difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is that Iraq has oil to pay for reconstruction efforts. I haven't found that exact quote yet, so you'll have to trust me or remember it yourself, but here's something simply about oil for reconstruction if you somehow haven't heard it. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/15/bush.oil/ Here are *some* quotes, but not the Bush quote. These are just admin quotes. http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/iraqquotes_web.htm Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: “Well, the reconstruction costs remain a very -- an issue for the future. And Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.” [source: White House Press Briefing, 2/18/03] Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: “This is not Afghanistan…When we approach the question of Iraq, we realize here is a country which has a resource. And it’s obvious, it’s oil. And it can bring in and does bring in a certain amount of revenue each year…$10, $15, even $18 billion…this is not a broke country.” [source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03] Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” [source: House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on a Supplemental War Regulation, 3/27/03] Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “If you [source: worry about just] the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.” [source: Fortune Magazine, Fall 2002] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 and in a few quick posts...the thread has been derailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Originally posted by Bufford 3.3 and in a few quick posts...the thread has been derailed. Well get it back on track:cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Originally posted by Cskin I didn't watch the speech.... it's just to painful for me to watch. I like what Bush stands for.... but he's not even an avergage orator. Let me guess... it sounded alot like... "Terror......A-Merica.... Peaceful Nation..... compassionate..... terror.... Al-Qaeda.... evil dictator...... tyranny...... terror.... .. nation..... A-Merica..... evil doers....... terror...... nation.......those opposing freedom........ democracy.....terror......A-Merica..... Thank you and God Bless America." Believe it or not, it wasnt the same speech you are use to hearing, he focused on accomplishments and the "5 steps to rebuilding Iraq". He was fairly specific which is understandable considering if he would have went into great detail he may still be speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma He did say we are giving control on June 30th Unfortunately, unless he changed his mind between Monday morning and Monday evening, then that's not what we're going to do. (And, to answer a previous question: No, I don't think we should hand over the military controll to them on 6/30, and likely not in January, either. I think some recent assination attempts make me think some folks want us to leave so they can start a civil war, and the only outcome I see from that is the guarantee that the worst guy will win. I'm not saying we should pack up and leave. I'm saying Bush shouldn't have said we would.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thew Posted May 25, 2004 Author Share Posted May 25, 2004 Did Bush give america the head fake? He told us he was turning over "complete soverenty" but what does that mean? America still has about 20 Billion dollars in reconstruction funds.. will the Iraqi government be deciding where and how those funds are spent? I don't think so..... If after June 30th American soldiers are attacked, will the Iraqi government be "giving us permission" to pursue the attackers? I heard complete soverenty, which was new. Bush did say something new; but did he mean something new? Did he just pull a Clinton on national security issues? Playing cutesy with the language. I guess we watch, learn and judge.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted May 25, 2004 Share Posted May 25, 2004 The UN wants us to give up control, we do it on June 30th like we say, then after a month we realize Iraq is not ready then we look to the UN for help. The UN then has to help, and our soldiers will stay and I think all of us know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.