New 3-Partitions Plan for Iraq, Limited role for UN

  • News
  • Thread starter Dissident Dan
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Plan
In summary, Germany and France have lukewarmly accepted the USA's new plan for the future of Iraq. The conversation also touches on the motives behind the war, with some criticizing the US for its imperialistic actions and others arguing that it was the right thing to do. The potential benefits of the war, such as securing the value of the dollar and gaining access to oil, are also discussed, along with concerns about the exploitation of the Iraqi people by American companies. Some also question the cost of the war and its impact on taxpayers. Overall, the conversation highlights the complex and controversial nature of the war in Iraq.
  • #1
Dissident Dan
238
2
Germany and France lukewarmly accepted the USA's new plan for the future of Iraq:

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=131051&BCCode=BNFRONTPG&newsdate=5/3/2003 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hmmm...teh Bush cabal's vindictiveness and idea that only America matters...more of teh standard right-wing radical imperialism.
 
  • #3
Originally posted by Zero
Hmmm...teh Bush cabal's vindictiveness and idea that only America matters...more of teh standard right-wing radical imperialism.
Yeah, that bastard. Who does he think he is trying to solve problems in other countries? He should be content to do what great countries like Germany and France do - ignore problems in other countries while profiting from them. And if he does want to solve problems, he should be humble enough to give other people all the credit for it.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Originally posted by russ_watters
Yeah, that bastard. Who does he think he is trying to solve problems in other countries? He should be content to do what great countries like Germany and France do - ignore problems in other countries while profiting from them. And if he does want to solve problems, he should be humble enough to give other people all the credit for it.

Well, that IS what America does, ignore human rights violations unless there is some gain in it. And, who cares who gets 'credit'?!? WHat kind of childish attitude would it be to put 'taking credit' over any other concern?
 
  • #5
so what did we gain from taking out saddams regime? a huge bill.
 
  • #6
Originally posted by HazZy
so what did we gain from taking out saddams regime? a huge bill.
Oh, and all that oil...let's not forget it.
 
  • #7
Originally posted by Zero
Oh, and all that oil...let's not forget it.

Lol, maybe you shouldn't count your oil until it gushes.
 
  • #8
Originally posted by kat
Lol, maybe you shouldn't count your oil until it gushes.

And by that you mean..what, exactly?
 
  • #9
Originally posted by HazZy
so what did we gain from taking out saddams regime? a huge bill.

Well, we gained some security for the value of the dollar. The country with the second largest known oil reserves in the world is now going to be very friendly to us, instead of cutting off our supply. The American people got a phony sense of security to comfort them.

Big companies got big contracts. Little bush got big popularity.
 
  • #10
what oil did we get? you think the UN is going to let us take the oil? we're still going to be paying market price for the oil, it would have been a MUCH better move (economics wise) if we just lifted the embargo we put on iraq. i won't deny that this war was just a blatant political move, but it still was the right thing to do.
 
  • #11
Originally posted by HazZy
what oil did we get? you think the UN is going to let us take the oil? we're still going to be paying market price for the oil, it would have been a MUCH better move (economics wise) if we just lifted the embargo we put on iraq. i won't deny that this war was just a blatant political move, but it still was the right thing to do.

The right thing for the wrong reasons is still wrong..and tends to lead to further wrongs down the road.

As far as the oil...there is money to be made, and American companies are going to make it. WE(as in America) aren't going to take the oil...but American companies are going to exploit the hell out of it, to teh detriment of the Iraqi people.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Zero
The right thing for the wrong reasons is still wrong..and tends to lead to further wrongs down the road.
that's politics... however, doing nothing is even worse then doing something for the wrong reasons.

and the iraqi people are already some of the poorest people in the world, what can they lose? under the regime the oil-for-food program wasn't even working, the regime pocketed most of the money. the people can only gain from this war, how much they gain will be seen in the future.

also the money given to companies for the reconstruction of iraq is miniscule when compared with the cost of the war. you can gripe all you want about this and that, but if we were just worried about oil we would have lifted the embargo and made saddam a very happy camper.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by HazZy


also the money given to companies for the reconstruction of iraq is miniscule when compared with the cost of the war. you can gripe all you want about this and that, but if we were just worried about oil we would have lifted the embargo and made saddam a very happy camper.

Ummm...what does one have to do with the other? The cost of teh war goes to taxpayers, the profits on oil go to private (and likely tax dodging) companies.
 
  • #14
well i thought you were speaking of the contracts given to clean up Iraq, sorry. but still, companies would benefit from having a limited suplly of oil. the demand for oil is going to stay relatively the same, but the supply is going to rise, companies lose money.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by HazZy

also the money given to companies for the reconstruction of iraq is miniscule when compared with the cost of the war.

Just one small point, and please, anyone-everyone ;) correct me if I am wrong..but isn't the money given to companies for reconstruction coming from usaid, or in other words American taxpayers?


Zero- 'scuse my warped sense of humor, I only meant..as in don't count your chickens til they hatch..there's little oil gushing at the moment, and until Iraq is peaceful and the oil is really gushing and secure, I personally, won't count it as a done deal.
 
  • #16
where else would it come from ?
 
  • #17
Originally posted by kat
Just one small point, and please, anyone-everyone ;) correct me if I am wrong..but isn't the money given to companies for reconstruction coming from usaid, or in other words American taxpayers?


Zero- 'scuse my warped sense of humor, I only meant..as in don't count your chickens til they hatch..there's little oil gushing at the moment, and until Iraq is peaceful and the oil is really gushing and secure, I personally, won't count it as a done deal.

What it is, is this...

US companies will have their starting costs offset by American tax money. Once they are up and running, they'll be pulling a huge profit, without having to worry about the initial start-up costs. It is win-win for those companies.
 
  • #18
"Well, we gained some security for the value of the dollar. The country with the second largest known oil reserves in the world is now going to be very friendly to us, instead of cutting off our supply. "

Yes very friendly. They will be friendly or they will be DEAD! Violent protest is a sign that democracy is working, especially if the protesters die. Hey, every time we kill an Iraqi civilian, its like we win all over again. Yay!
 
  • #19
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
"Well, we gained some security for the value of the dollar. The country with the second largest known oil reserves in the world is now going to be very friendly to us, instead of cutting off our supply. "

Yes very friendly. They will be friendly or they will be DEAD! Violent protest is a sign that democracy is working, especially if the protesters die. Hey, every time we kill an Iraqi civilian, its like we win all over again. Yay!

Did you know that every time an US or Israeli soldier 'brings permanent peace' to an Arab civilian, an angel gets its wings?
 
  • #20
Umm, Zero, most of those companies who are getting taxpayer cash for reconstruction are *not* oil companies -- once they've built their stuff, it's built. I suppose Iraqis could offer them contracts later, but it's really hard to make the 'they're stealing from the Iraqi people' argument here. Do you really think TotaFinElf would be giving them a much better deal?
 
  • #21
More on-topic question -- the US and UK zones I understand, but why exactly is a third of the country being handed to Poland? Bad jokes aside, does this strike anyone as really odd? Why Poland? Why not Australia or Spain, the other big coalition allies?
 
  • #22
Originally posted by damgo
Umm, Zero, most of those companies who are getting taxpayer cash for reconstruction are *not* oil companies -- once they've built their stuff, it's built. I suppose Iraqis could offer them contracts later, but it's really hard to make the 'they're stealing from the Iraqi people' argument here. Do you really think TotaFinElf would be giving them a much better deal?

Oh of course they aren't all oil companies...but they all stand to see a huge profit.
 
  • #23
^^^ So? Profit is not ipso facto bad. If anything, it's good.

I'm still puzzled by this Poland thing, if I didn't know better I'd think it was the start of a joke: "A Brit, an American, and a Pole walk into a palace in Baghdad. The Brit says..."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
*Edited for racism*
 
  • #25
I agree my post should have been deleted but implying citizens of a particular country have body odor is certainly not “racist”.
 

What is the "New 3-Partitions Plan for Iraq"?

The "New 3-Partitions Plan for Iraq" is a proposed plan for restructuring the governance of Iraq, dividing the country into three separate regions based on ethnic and religious groups. This plan aims to address ongoing conflicts and divide power among different groups in order to create a more stable and peaceful country.

What is the role of the United Nations in this plan?

The United Nations would have a limited role in the implementation of this plan, serving as a mediator and providing support and guidance to ensure a fair and peaceful transition. The UN would not have direct control or authority over the regions.

Who came up with this plan?

The "New 3-Partitions Plan for Iraq" was proposed by a group of experts and academics in 2006 as a potential solution to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq. It has since been revisited and debated by various political and academic figures.

What are the potential benefits of this plan?

The plan aims to address ethnic and religious divisions within Iraq and create a more stable and peaceful country. It also allows for more autonomy and self-governance for each region, potentially leading to more efficient and effective governance.

What are the potential challenges or criticisms of this plan?

Some critics argue that this plan could further divide Iraq and create more conflict, as well as potentially leading to displacement and discrimination against certain groups. There are also concerns about the logistics and feasibility of dividing the country into three separate regions.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top