Al-Jazeera TV broadcasts video of captured U.S. troops

[RCA]

I honestly believe Bush thinks he is doing this for the right thing for the right reason and not re-election. However his unilateral approach is the problem (it is not just Iraq that he uses this approach.) What is more dangerous a rogue state with the bomb or the one without. It seems George Bush gets to make the decision, and either you are with him and if not, then you must be against him.

As for waiting the 3 extra weeks, I think Bush would have gained more then he lost. Where would it have left Canada if it were Canada‘s compromise deadline thay was broken, We would have had to move with the US. As well, other countries would have seen the US as willing to compromise. France would have vetoed anyway, but the point was the US was willing to wait to at least the end of March. Then they could have unleashed the hounds. Do we honestly believe that all the people that are protesting the war must be dead wrong and we are completely right?

And oil is a factor. Maybe not the main one but the Iraq oil reserves are to huge to ignore.

 

[SpinDoc]

Just a point in response to King‘s question of how the US would control Iraq‘s oil reserves:

It is VERY simple. The way to do it is to install a government that will "play ball" with the US on a long term stable basis. By installing a government (autocratic or democratic, doesn‘t matter) favourable to the US (either by ideology or because they "owe" the US), the new Iraq would ensure a stable output and export of oil, potentially offsetting any fluctuations that may occur in the future as staged by the rest of OPEC.

i.e. if OPEC countries reduce production, a friendly Iraq would step up (up to production capabilities) production to offset the shortfall, which would ENSURE that the price of oil would be within US tolerances.

Then you can also throw in the secondary control aspects with US-based petroleum companies investing and joint-venturing in Iraq oil production. We already see a hint of what‘s to come with the Congressman from Florida tabling a bill that would ban one form of cellular phone standard (most common in Middle East and the world) in favour of CDMA standard (a North American standard). Also, the British govt is alarmed/dismayed (or so the news report say) by the number of US-based companies that are already lined up for reconstruction work in Iraq.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Can‘t fault that logic.
Knock down a building then send workers to go fix it and get paid.

Like when mechanics find something wrong with your car. "I wonder how THAT got broke"

Government making sweet deals with civilian companies, who says canada never influenced the states

 

[sarsteve]

Gotta go with RCA on this. Would 2-3 weeks made a big difference? Sure, it would have given the Yanks a chance to move the 4th out of Turkey. And, as mentioned, Johnny Cretin would not have been able to sit on his a$$ if it had been his proposal shot down by France.

Not sure who brought up the protesters(and frankly, I‘m too lazy at the mo to check :blotto: ), but what makes them so wrong? Days before the war started 45% of Americans wanted the US to stick with the UN process. Thats about 150,000,000 people. Are they all f^cked in the head?

 

[King]

Can 150,000,000 people be wrong? Sure. Most Europeans were wrong with their initial attitude torwrds fighting WWII. About 45% of Canadians who voted in the last elected voted Liberal, are they "wrong?" I‘d say they are misinformed. Not to sound like an elitist, but most people are misinformed or just don‘t give a ****.

Waiting 3 weeks and thus following the CDN compromise might have gotten Canada on board. Maybe not. Considering the totally confusing way the Liberal have handled this conflict so far, I don‘t know if anyone can say for sure they might have done. After all, the compromise would have been vetoed at the UN and Chretien would have the same public opinion situation he has today, no go if it‘s not sanctioned by the UN. I wonder, who would have been shown that the US was willing to compromise and thus get them on board with Bush? The French, Germans, Chinese, and Russians would have said no regardless if the US waited 3 weeks or 3 months. Last spring the word was Bush was starting this war in the summer, then in the summer it was pushed back to the fall, and by Xmas the conventional wisdom was the war would start in late January. The deadline kept getting pushed back because for various reasons the US was willing to play the inspections game for a while. I think the US administration got fed up and made one last ditch effort and tried yet another UN resolution, which ultimately failed. Again, Saddam had 12 years to disarm, Bush waited longer then most thought he would. If none of that convinced the major players (i.e. France, Germany..) that needed convincing then nothing would. 3 weeks would have changed nothing in terms of the international political scene. In retrospect the US could have put more troops in the region, but would they have done so?

As for my oil question, I should have framed it better. Yes America could take control of Iraq‘s oil reserves, but what evidence exists that shows they would do so? Companies can "line up" all they want. But has the Bush administration done anything
specific to allow them to rush in and take what they want? Bush has said he won‘t, the whole world is watching.

 

[SpinDoc]

Here‘s the New York Times‘ view on possible things to come (just one point of view, that‘s all):

US Rejects Criticism on Awarding of Iraq Contracts