Poll: Has the Iraq war affected Bush's credibility?

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: HJD1
There is no government in place in Iraq to give the ok to take the oil and I don't recall a vote of the people authorizing the removal of their assets.

Take, interesting word there HJD1, can you back that up?

Is the oil being sold or is it being taken. Where is the money from the oil going?

The money from the oil is still going into the escrow account set up for the oil for food program. I can't find who controlls the fund, it does not sound like the secretary general does however. Also hjd1 - the oil is under contractual obligations from deals made with the previous government according to their foreign minister.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
sandorski, I just thought they were against us stealing all that oil.
----------------------------
You wouldn't spread lies on this board now would you moonies?
-------------------------
Not intentionally, of course. Why, am I wrong. I thought oil was why the war was fought because that's what everybody either keeps saying or keeps denying. I was just reminding everybody of this common perception. We only know what we hear, right?

DaiShan maybe knows more about it than I.

Thanks for the laugh moonie.



edit
In response to your earlier post.

Secretary of State Colin Powell made an eloquent point about America's desire for "empire building" to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

During an address to the World Economic Forum, Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked a somewhat long and involved question by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, which ended with the following interrogative:


And would you not agree, as a very significant political figure in the United States, Colin, that America, at the present time, is in danger of relying too much upon the hard power and not enough upon building the trust from which the soft values, which of course all of our family life that actually at the bottom, when the bottom line is reached, is what makes human life valuable?
Secretary Powell delivered a lengthy response to the former Archbishop's question, in the midst of which came the eloquent line quoted in the example above:

The United States believes strongly in what you call soft power, the value of democracy, the value of the free economic system, the value of making sure that each citizen is free and free to pursue their own God-given ambitions and to use the talents that they were given by God. And that is what we say to the rest of the world. That is why we participated in establishing a community of democracy within the Western Hemisphere. It's why we participate in all of these great international organizations.

There is nothing in American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power. But what we have found over the decades is that unless you do have hard power ? and here I think you're referring to military power ? then sometimes you are faced with situations that you can't deal with.

I mean, it was not soft power that freed Europe. It was hard power. And what followed immediately after hard power? Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan. Soft power came with American GIs who put their weapons down once the war was over and helped all those nations rebuild. We did the same thing in Japan.

So our record of living our values and letting our values be an inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what America has done for the world.

(Applause.)

We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we?ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works.

Yes, that was certainly very eloquent, and I find myself trusting Colin Powell, over the rest of the administration, however I fail to see what that has to do with the discussion at hand. We were discussing justification of the war. If anything that statement furthers my contention that America will be gaining oil out of the deal, case in point the marshall plan, which was an economic aid package to rebuild europe after world war II. Iraq is in need of similar aid however we have said we will not give them money, they will have to buy their way out of this one. They have something we want - oil. We purchase the oil, they rebuild their country, we win double. We do not have to rebuild their country, and we get oil. Hell, maybe we win triple, we aren't hated for coddling them and doing something they could do themselves (although I doubt this, but wishful thinkin eh)

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: HJD1
There is no government in place in Iraq to give the ok to take the oil and I don't recall a vote of the people authorizing the removal of their assets.

Take, interesting word there HJD1, can you back that up?

Is the oil being sold or is it being taken. Where is the money from the oil going?

The money from the oil is still going into the escrow account set up for the oil for food program. I can't find who controlls the fund, it does not sound like the secretary general does however. Also hjd1 - the oil is under contractual obligations from deals made with the previous government according to their foreign minister.

So your justification for your earlier statement is?

In case you forgot it,

The United States, however you have to be crazy if you think we are paying OPEC prices for that oil.

Who's crazy?

 

[LunarRay]

DaiShan
The money from the oil is still going into the escrow account set up for the oil for food program. I can't find who controlls the fund, it does not sound like the secretary general does however. Also hjd1 - the oil is under contractual obligations from deals made with the previous government according to their foreign minister.

International law is an interesting read. So is Article 51 of the UN Charter. According to 51, if the US invaded Iraq for self defense reasons The UN still retains control of the issue. Now without a government in place, notwithstanding the lifting of sanctions and all that, the contractual obligations of the former government are not enforceable until the issue is litigated..(my read of this) or ratified, given the illegal conditions under which they occurred... voidable vs void.. , by the people of Iraq. The illegal conditions were the sale of oil for purposes other than allowed under UN sanctions.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: HJD1
There is no government in place in Iraq to give the ok to take the oil and I don't recall a vote of the people authorizing the removal of their assets.

Take, interesting word there HJD1, can you back that up?

Is the oil being sold or is it being taken. Where is the money from the oil going?

Take = to get into one's possession or control... we have achieved this.

To legally sell one should be a legal holder in due course. Have we the document from the Iraqi people to prove we are the legal holder in due course? If we do not then we have misappropriated the assets of the Iraqi people even if the taking will inure to their benefit.

Barrels of Iraqi Oil Exported for the First Time Since the War

"...
Thamir Ghadhban, the interim chief executive of the Iraqi Oil Ministry, said over the weekend that oil exports would probably resume next month and that more than $1 billion and about 18 months would be needed for Iraq to return to its prewar oil production of about three million barrels a day, Reuters reported. Mr. Ghadhban had said before that Iraq would reach its earlier output by the end of this year.
..."

You were saying?

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: HJD1
DaiShan
The money from the oil is still going into the escrow account set up for the oil for food program. I can't find who controlls the fund, it does not sound like the secretary general does however. Also hjd1 - the oil is under contractual obligations from deals made with the previous government according to their foreign minister.

International law is an interesting read. So is Article 51 of the UN Charter. According to 51, if the US invaded Iraq for self defense reasons The UN still retains control of the issue. Now without a government in place, notwithstanding the lifting of sanctions and all that, the contractual obligations of the former government are not enforceable until the issue is litigated..(my read of this) or ratified, given the illegal conditions under which they occurred... voidable vs void.. , by the people of Iraq. The illegal conditions were the sale of oil for purposes other than allowed under UN sanctions.

Not to be overly adversarial here, but it really doesn't matter how you read it, right now that is what is being done, there is an interim iraqi government and they are upholding the oil for food program. It isn't anarchy over there, it isn't stable, but they do have a primitive form of government set up for the time being. It is not for the United States, nor any other country to invade on the soverign oil fields of iraq and decide who gets what. As the bush administration has said in their justification for the oil for food program "The oil belongs to the iraqi people" That seemingly innocent statement may end up being the doubl-edged sword that cuts them.

/edit and btw, you may want to do a little reading up - your contention that "The illegal conditions were the sale of oil for purposes other than allowed under UN sanctions" The United Nations not only apporved the oil for food program (also suggested it) but they approved it UNANIMOUSLY So unless you are going to hold the United Nations in breech of United Nations sanctions, you may wish to re-think your stance.

 

[Moonbeam]

Who's crazy?
----------------------
Good grief, you know my answer to that. We have met the enemy and he is us.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Who's crazy?
----------------------
Good grief, you know my answer to that. We have met the enemy and he is us.

Crazy IS a relative term eh Moonbeam?

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: HJD1
There is no government in place in Iraq to give the ok to take the oil and I don't recall a vote of the people authorizing the removal of their assets.

Take, interesting word there HJD1, can you back that up?

Is the oil being sold or is it being taken. Where is the money from the oil going?

The money from the oil is still going into the escrow account set up for the oil for food program. I can't find who controlls the fund, it does not sound like the secretary general does however. Also hjd1 - the oil is under contractual obligations from deals made with the previous government according to their foreign minister.

So your justification for your earlier statement is?

In case you forgot it,

The United States, however you have to be crazy if you think we are paying OPEC prices for that oil.

Who's crazy?

My justification is simple market economics - an overabundance known as a surplus, causes a decline in prices, OPEC hasn't dropped their prices, but I say again that the United States is not paying OPEC prices for that oil, wait for the numbers to come out (if they ever do) and you will see.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
sandorski, I just thought they were against us stealing all that oil.

Detail exactly how you think the US is stealing the oil. I want the specifics. Are we pumping the oil into tankers that are coming to the US and not telling anyone? C'mon, you made the allegation, now back it up with facts and specifics, if you can.

You wouldn't spread lies on this board now would you moonies?

Comon etech - I know you can do better than that, that is dense of you to assume that we are taking oil under gunpoint. However the simple fact of the matter is that we have said we will not pay to rebuild Iraq (I actually agree with this move, which is a break with historical US policy) hence the iraqi people must find some way to pay for the rebuilding that must be done. Now how would they do this, with their currency so unstable? Easy, they have an abundance of natural resources (fossil fuels, namely oil) with this black gold they can pey their debts, however, their debts are many, and ever growing, they must sell an abundance of this oil. Who will be right there to take it? The United States, however you have to be crazy if you think we are paying OPEC prices for that oil. We are getting lower prices because a) we occupy their country b) they owe us a lot of money and c) they have to rebuild a stable iraq, and oil may just be what keeps the cold wind from their backs, and food on the table.

BS, prove it. You made the claim that the US is getting the oil, prove it.

You made the claim that the US is getting oil at reduced prices, prove it.

edit/

However the simple fact of the matter is that we have said we will not pay to rebuild Iraq

Where do you get your information?

U.S. Aid to Iraq Most Significant Since the Marshall Plan
23 June 2003
...
He said that before the Iraq war, the U.S. Congress approved a supplemental budget of $2,400 million for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance in Iraq, with a portion of the money set aside in case of a large-scale "humanitarian emergency" related to the war. Natsios said that since the war did not produce such a crisis, it might be possible for U.S. officials to use some of the humanitarian assistance funds for reconstruction work.

He noted that U.S. funding for Iraq represents America's largest assistance effort in a single country since the Marshall Plan that helped transform Europe following World War II. "This is an enormous commitment," Natsios said.

He said U.S. officials in Iraq were working closely with international organizations and humanitarian groups that specialize in development
and reconstruction work. To illustrate, he said that $40 million in U.S. funds had been channeled to UNICEF (United Nations Children's
Fund), another $10 million to the World Health Organization (WHO) and $10 million to UNESCO (United Nations Education, Scientific and
Cultural Organization) for textbooks and other educational supplies. Another $70 million has gone to various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for community development activities.
...

I get my information from statements made by president bush, they came out of his mouth, we will not rebuild iraq with our money, they will have to use their resources - the oil belongs to the iraqi people. The oil for food program is currently in place for economic relief.

/edit you seem to have missed this paragraph in your assumption that we were giving money to iraq "He said U.S. officials in Iraq were working closely with international
organizations and humanitarian groups that specialize in development
and reconstruction work. To illustrate, he said that $40 million in
U.S. funds had been channeled to UNICEF (United Nations Children's
Fund), another $10 million to the World Health Organization (WHO) and
$10 million to UNESCO (United Nations Education, Scientific and
Cultural Organization) for textbooks and other educational supplies.
Another $70 million has gone to various non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) for community development activities." We are giving money to UN aid groups, it may be earmarked for iraq, but we are giving to the UN.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: HJD1
DaiShan
The money from the oil is still going into the escrow account set up for the oil for food program. I can't find who controlls the fund, it does not sound like the secretary general does however. Also hjd1 - the oil is under contractual obligations from deals made with the previous government according to their foreign minister.

International law is an interesting read. So is Article 51 of the UN Charter. According to 51, if the US invaded Iraq for self defense reasons The UN still retains control of the issue. Now without a government in place, notwithstanding the lifting of sanctions and all that, the contractual obligations of the former government are not enforceable until the issue is litigated..(my read of this) or ratified, given the illegal conditions under which they occurred... voidable vs void.. , by the people of Iraq. The illegal conditions were the sale of oil for purposes other than allowed under UN sanctions.

Not to be overly adversarial here, but it really doesn't matter how you read it, right now that is what is being done, there is an interim iraqi government and they are upholding the oil for food program. It isn't anarchy over there, it isn't stable, but they do have a primitive form of government set up for the time being. It is not for the United States, nor any other country to invade on the soverign oil fields of iraq and decide who gets what. As the bush administration has said in their justification for the oil for food program "The oil belongs to the iraqi people" That seemingly innocent statement may end up being the doubl-edged sword that cuts them.

/edit and btw, you may want to do a little reading up - your contention that "The illegal conditions were the sale of oil for purposes other than allowed under UN sanctions" The United Nations not only apporved the oil for food program (also suggested it) but they approved it UNANIMOUSLY So unless you are going to hold the United Nations in breech of United Nations sanctions, you may wish to re-think your stance.

sigh, you try so hard yet have so little knowledge.



Resolution 1483 (2003)

12. Notes the establishment of a Development Fund for Iraq to be held by the
Central Bank of Iraq and to be audited by independent public accountants approved
by the International Advisory and Monitoring Board of the Development Fund for
Iraq and looks forward to the early meeting of that International Advisory and
Monitoring Board, whose members shall include duly qualified representatives of
the Secretary-General, of the Managing Director of the International Monetary
Fund, of the Director-General of the Arab Fund for Social and Economic
Development, and of the President of the World Bank;
13. Notes further that the funds in the Development Fund for Iraq shall be
disbursed at the direction of the Authority, in consultation with the Iraqi interim
administration, for the purposes set out in paragraph 14 below;
14. Underlines that the Development Fund for Iraq shall be used in a
transparent manner to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, for the
economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq?s infrastructure, for the continued
disarmament of Iraq, and for the costs of Iraqi civilian administration, and for other
purposes benefiting the people of Iraq;
15. Calls upon the international financial institutions to assist the people of
Iraq in the reconstruction and development of their economy and to facilitate
assistance by the broader donor community, and welcomes the readiness of creditors,
including those of the Paris Club, to seek a solution to Iraq?s sovereign debt
problems;
16. Requests also that the Secretary-General, in coordination with the
Authority, continue the exercise of his responsibilities under Security Council
resolution 1472 (2003) of 28 March 2003 and 1476 (2003) of 24 April 2003, for a
period of six months following the adoption of this resolution, and terminate within
this time period, in the most cost effective manner, the ongoing operations of the
?Oil-for-Food? Programme (the ?Programme?), both at headquarters level and in the
field, transferring responsibility for the administration of any remaining activity
under the Programme to the Authority, including by taking the following necessary
measures:

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: HJD1
DaiShan
The money from the oil is still going into the escrow account set up for the oil for food program. I can't find who controlls the fund, it does not sound like the secretary general does however. Also hjd1 - the oil is under contractual obligations from deals made with the previous government according to their foreign minister.

International law is an interesting read. So is Article 51 of the UN Charter. According to 51, if the US invaded Iraq for self defense reasons The UN still retains control of the issue. Now without a government in place, notwithstanding the lifting of sanctions and all that, the contractual obligations of the former government are not enforceable until the issue is litigated..(my read of this) or ratified, given the illegal conditions under which they occurred... voidable vs void.. , by the people of Iraq. The illegal conditions were the sale of oil for purposes other than allowed under UN sanctions.

Not to be overly adversarial here, but it really doesn't matter how you read it, right now that is what is being done, there is an interim iraqi government and they are upholding the oil for food program. It isn't anarchy over there, it isn't stable, but they do have a primitive form of government set up for the time being. It is not for the United States, nor any other country to invade on the soverign oil fields of iraq and decide who gets what. As the bush administration has said in their justification for the oil for food program "The oil belongs to the iraqi people" That seemingly innocent statement may end up being the doubl-edged sword that cuts them.

/edit and btw, you may want to do a little reading up - your contention that "The illegal conditions were the sale of oil for purposes other than allowed under UN sanctions" The United Nations not only apporved the oil for food program (also suggested it) but they approved it UNANIMOUSLY So unless you are going to hold the United Nations in breech of United Nations sanctions, you may wish to re-think your stance.

I agree the oil belongs to the Iraqi people
The oil for whatever provision that created the contracts before the invasion did not comport with the sanctions. They are voidable.
Contracts entered into after the invasion, if blessed by the UN are a legal contract since the UN is still in control until formal recognition of the new government. The US usurped the authority of the UN and until the UN gives explicit authority for the US alone to act in its stead any action by the US contract wise should also be voidable by the Iraqi people when they have a recognized independent government.
This is my stance... like in all law... it is opinion.... USSC rulings are opinions too.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: HJD1
DaiShan
The money from the oil is still going into the escrow account set up for the oil for food program. I can't find who controlls the fund, it does not sound like the secretary general does however. Also hjd1 - the oil is under contractual obligations from deals made with the previous government according to their foreign minister.

International law is an interesting read. So is Article 51 of the UN Charter. According to 51, if the US invaded Iraq for self defense reasons The UN still retains control of the issue. Now without a government in place, notwithstanding the lifting of sanctions and all that, the contractual obligations of the former government are not enforceable until the issue is litigated..(my read of this) or ratified, given the illegal conditions under which they occurred... voidable vs void.. , by the people of Iraq. The illegal conditions were the sale of oil for purposes other than allowed under UN sanctions.

Not to be overly adversarial here, but it really doesn't matter how you read it, right now that is what is being done, there is an interim iraqi government and they are upholding the oil for food program. It isn't anarchy over there, it isn't stable, but they do have a primitive form of government set up for the time being. It is not for the United States, nor any other country to invade on the soverign oil fields of iraq and decide who gets what. As the bush administration has said in their justification for the oil for food program "The oil belongs to the iraqi people" That seemingly innocent statement may end up being the doubl-edged sword that cuts them.

/edit and btw, you may want to do a little reading up - your contention that "The illegal conditions were the sale of oil for purposes other than allowed under UN sanctions" The United Nations not only apporved the oil for food program (also suggested it) but they approved it UNANIMOUSLY So unless you are going to hold the United Nations in breech of United Nations sanctions, you may wish to re-think your stance.

sigh, you try so hard yet have so little knowledge.



Resolution 1483 (2003)

12. Notes the establishment of a Development Fund for Iraq to be held by the
Central Bank of Iraq and to be audited by independent public accountants approved
by the International Advisory and Monitoring Board of the Development Fund for
Iraq and looks forward to the early meeting of that International Advisory and
Monitoring Board, whose members shall include duly qualified representatives of
the Secretary-General, of the Managing Director of the International Monetary
Fund, of the Director-General of the Arab Fund for Social and Economic
Development, and of the President of the World Bank;
13. Notes further that the funds in the Development Fund for Iraq shall be
disbursed at the direction of the Authority, in consultation with the Iraqi interim
administration, for the purposes set out in paragraph 14 below;
14. Underlines that the Development Fund for Iraq shall be used in a
transparent manner to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, for the
economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq?s infrastructure, for the continued
disarmament of Iraq, and for the costs of Iraqi civilian administration, and for other
purposes benefiting the people of Iraq;
15. Calls upon the international financial institutions to assist the people of
Iraq in the reconstruction and development of their economy and to facilitate
assistance by the broader donor community, and welcomes the readiness of creditors,
including those of the Paris Club, to seek a solution to Iraq?s sovereign debt
problems;
16. Requests also that the Secretary-General, in coordination with the
Authority, continue the exercise of his responsibilities under Security Council
resolution 1472 (2003) of 28 March 2003 and 1476 (2003) of 24 April 2003, for a
period of six months following the adoption of this resolution, and terminate within
this time period, in the most cost effective manner, the ongoing operations of the
?Oil-for-Food? Programme (the ?Programme?), both at headquarters level and in the
field, transferring responsibility for the administration of any remaining activity
under the Programme to the Authority, including by taking the following necessary
measures:

I will ignore your abusive ad hominem attack. oil for food
bbc news rls about extension on oil for food
Again, just by posting the resolution, I fail to see what you are trying to say. You only support my assertion of the status quo.

 

[Moonbeam]

12. Notes the establishment of a Development Fund for Iraq to be held by the
Central Bank of Iraq and to be audited by independent public accountants approved
by the International Advisory and Monitoring Board of the Development Fund for
Iraq and looks forward to the early meeting of that International Advisory and
Monitoring Board, whose members shall include duly qualified representatives of
the Secretary-General, of the Managing Director of the International Monetary
Fund, of the Director-General of the Arab Fund for Social and Economic
Development, and of the President of the World Bank;
13. Notes further that the funds in the Development Fund for Iraq shall be
disbursed at the direction of the Authority, in consultation with the Iraqi interim
administration, for the purposes set out in paragraph 14 below;
14. Underlines that the Development Fund for Iraq shall be used in a
transparent manner to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, for the
economic reconstruction and repair of Iraq?s infrastructure, for the continued
disarmament of Iraq, and for the costs of Iraqi civilian administration, and for other
purposes benefiting the people of Iraq;
15. Calls upon the international financial institutions to assist the people of
Iraq in the reconstruction and development of their economy and to facilitate
assistance by the broader donor community, and welcomes the readiness of creditors,
including those of the Paris Club, to seek a solution to Iraq?s sovereign debt
problems;
16. Requests also that the Secretary-General, in coordination with the
Authority, continue the exercise of his responsibilities under Security Council
resolution 1472 (2003) of 28 March 2003 and 1476 (2003) of 24 April 2003, for a
period of six months following the adoption of this resolution, and terminate within
this time period, in the most cost effective manner, the ongoing operations of the
?Oil-for-Food? Programme (the ?Programme?), both at headquarters level and in the
field, transferring responsibility for the administration of any remaining activity
under the Programme to the Authority, including by taking the following necessary
measures:
----------------------------
Does that mean we have to be creative about stealing the oil? I never understood fine print.

 

[etech]

So, the oil is being sold under a UN program to assist in feeding and the rebuilding of Iraq.

Now lets get back to your orginal contention.

Comon etech - I know you can do better than that, that is dense of you to assume that we are taking oil under gunpoint. However the simple fact of the matter is that we have said we will not pay to rebuild Iraq (I actually agree with this move, which is a break with historical US policy) hence the iraqi people must find some way to pay for the rebuilding that must be done. Now how would they do this, with their currency so unstable? Easy, they have an abundance of natural resources (fossil fuels, namely oil) with this black gold they can pey their debts, however, their debts are many, and ever growing, they must sell an abundance of this oil. Who will be right there to take it? The United States, however you have to be crazy if you think we are paying OPEC prices for that oil. We are getting lower prices because a) we occupy their country b) they owe us a lot of money and c) they have to rebuild a stable iraq, and oil may just be what keeps the cold wind from their backs, and food on the table.

Can you prove that the oil is all going to the US?
Can you prove that any oil going to the US is being sold at a discount?

 

[LunarRay]

MB,

Does that mean we have to be creative about stealing the oil? I never understood fine print.

I understand the Iraqi folks had to start a fire to show us where it was... so maybe they gave it to us to dispose in whatever manner we see fit. But, we are constrained by The UN Resolution and, - WE ALWAYS follow UN resolutions..., to do as it says.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: HJD1

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: HJD1
DaiShan
The money from the oil is still going into the escrow account set up for the oil for food program. I can't find who controlls the fund, it does not sound like the secretary general does however. Also hjd1 - the oil is under contractual obligations from deals made with the previous government according to their foreign minister.

International law is an interesting read. So is Article 51 of the UN Charter. According to 51, if the US invaded Iraq for self defense reasons The UN still retains control of the issue. Now without a government in place, notwithstanding the lifting of sanctions and all that, the contractual obligations of the former government are not enforceable until the issue is litigated..(my read of this) or ratified, given the illegal conditions under which they occurred... voidable vs void.. , by the people of Iraq. The illegal conditions were the sale of oil for purposes other than allowed under UN sanctions.

Not to be overly adversarial here, but it really doesn't matter how you read it, right now that is what is being done, there is an interim iraqi government and they are upholding the oil for food program. It isn't anarchy over there, it isn't stable, but they do have a primitive form of government set up for the time being. It is not for the United States, nor any other country to invade on the soverign oil fields of iraq and decide who gets what. As the bush administration has said in their justification for the oil for food program "The oil belongs to the iraqi people" That seemingly innocent statement may end up being the doubl-edged sword that cuts them.

/edit and btw, you may want to do a little reading up - your contention that "The illegal conditions were the sale of oil for purposes other than allowed under UN sanctions" The United Nations not only apporved the oil for food program (also suggested it) but they approved it UNANIMOUSLY So unless you are going to hold the United Nations in breech of United Nations sanctions, you may wish to re-think your stance.

I agree the oil belongs to the Iraqi people
The oil for whatever provision that created the contracts before the invasion did not comport with the sanctions. They are voidable.
Contracts entered into after the invasion, if blessed by the UN are a legal contract since the UN is still in control until formal recognition of the new government. The US usurped the authority of the UN and until the UN gives explicit authority for the US alone to act in its stead any action by the US contract wise should also be voidable by the Iraqi people when they have a recognized independent government.
This is my stance... like in all law... it is opinion.... USSC rulings are opinions too.

Yes, law is interpreted, it is not black and white, you presented your opinion, I presented mine, and attempted to qualify it. I will continue on this quest: with my main point being that the UN has authorized the selling of iraqi oil for food. I don't understand what you are trying to say by saying that the contract is void. That would mean the UN voided its own resolution because that resolution was illegal (it gets a bit difficult from there) At any rate, I don't buy into the BS that in order to be a country the UN has to recognize you. All that is needed to be a country, is clear borders, a national tie, a coherent governmental structure, and people to follow that government. The UN was not created to squabble over which nations are legitimate and which are not, it was created to ensure world peace, to attempt to bring peaceful solutions to protentially explosive situations. Anyhow, that is my little side tangent, take it with a grain of salt if you like.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: HJD1
MB,

Does that mean we have to be creative about stealing the oil? I never understood fine print.

I understand the Iraqi folks had to start a fire to show us where it was... so maybe they gave it to us to dispose in whatever manner we see fit. But, we are constrained by The UN Resolution and, - WE ALWAYS follow UN resolutions..., to do as it says.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic here, but the implication of your statement that we always follow un resolutions, seems to be that no matter what the United Nations thinks, it is our duty to interpret and follow their resolutions as they pertain to our interpretations. This of course means that the United Nations is fallible in its judgement (the presupposition is that the US is not fallible and our interpretations are right both morally and legally) However, if the UN is fallible in its interpretations, so too is it fallible in its judgement in resolution making, so regardless of our interpretation of the resolution, it holds little weight.

 

[etech]

moonie,

Does that mean we have to be creative about stealing the oil? I never understood fine print.

Only if you are so full of hate and bitterness that you can only see bad in any action. That does seem to be the only thing that you can do.


HJD1,

Get out of the moonlight and you are a decent poster.


DaiShan
UN extends oil for food program -

From the link that you posted.
"On Thursday night the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to extend the program to June 3."

Resolution 1483 (2003)

20. Decides that all export sales of petroleum, petroleum products, and
natural gas from Iraq following the date of the adoption of this resolution shall be
made consistent with prevailing international market best practices, to be audited by
independent public accountants reporting to the International Advisory and
Monitoring Board referred to in paragraph 12 above in order to ensure transparency,
and decides further that, except as provided in paragraph 21 below, all proceeds
from such sales shall be deposited into the Development Fund for Iraq until such
time as an internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq is properly
constituted;
21. Decides further that 5 per cent of the proceeds referred to in paragraph
20 above shall be deposited into the Compensation Fund established in accordance
with resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent relevant resolutions and that, unless an
internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq and the Governing
Council of the United Nations Compensation Commission, in the exercise of its
authority over methods of ensuring that payments are made into the Compensation
Fund, decide otherwise, this requirement shall be binding on a properly constituted,
internationally recognized, representative government of Iraq and any successor
thereto;


I guess it's possible moonie that you wouldn't intentionally lie. I don't think you even realize when you do it anymore.

 

[LunarRay]

DaiShan,
Yes, law is interpreted, it is not black and white, you presented your opinion, I presented mine, and attempted to qualify it. I will continue on this quest: with my main point being that the UN has authorized the selling of iraqi oil for food. I don't understand what you are trying to say by saying that the contract is void. That would mean the UN voided its own resolution because that resolution was illegal (it gets a bit difficult from there) At any rate, I don't buy into the BS that in order to be a country the UN has to recognize you. All that is needed to be a country, is clear borders, a national tie, a coherent governmental structure, and people to follow that government. The UN was not created to squabble over which nations are legitimate and which are not, it was created to ensure world peace, to attempt to bring peaceful solutions to protentially explosive situations. Anyhow, that is my little side tangent, take it with a grain of salt if you like.
*************

I ment voidable if I said void..but I think I said voidable by the Iraqi folks regading pre-invasion contracts because the proceeds were not used for the manner allowed... You might say.. well France didn't know that... and I say there is circumstancial evidence to support the notion France was complicit in other illegal actions with SH's government which gives the Iraqi of today a case to estop the enforcement of the contract on those grounds. (that France knew it was not for food).
I also said post-invasion action by the US regarding contracts let are also voidable by the future Formal and Independent Iraqi government -IMO- if the UN did not give explicit to the US to enter into those contracts... probably a moot point. (time)
That which has the authority of the UN is a binding contract and enforcable up to the point when a Formal and Independent Iraqi government is recognized. At that point, A ratification of the unforfilled portion should occur or the new govt. may seek to renegotiate under threat of declaring the contracts voidable.
I don't know how else to say it.. no reflection on you it is my limitation.. the UN did not violate the UN.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: HJD1
MB,

Does that mean we have to be creative about stealing the oil? I never understood fine print.

I understand the Iraqi folks had to start a fire to show us where it was... so maybe they gave it to us to dispose in whatever manner we see fit. But, we are constrained by The UN Resolution and, - WE ALWAYS follow UN resolutions..., to do as it says.

I can't tell if you are being sarcastic here, but the implication of your statement that we always follow un resolutions, seems to be that no matter what the United Nations thinks, it is our duty to interpret and follow their resolutions as they pertain to our interpretations. This of course means that the United Nations is fallible in its judgement (the presupposition is that the US is not fallible and our interpretations are right both morally and legally) However, if the UN is fallible in its interpretations, so too is it fallible in its judgement in resolution making, so regardless of our interpretation of the resolution, it holds little weight.

First.. you're a mighty sharp (intelligent) fellow.. my complements! (although some would say... everyone is sharp compared to hjd1)
We and the 'willing' interpreted the resolutions re: Iraq to mean and authorize as we deemed necessary to effect the agenda. Failing an explicit resolution to invade one can assume either the interpretation was correct (why the res that failed) or it was not but, we did invade. To the extent our invasion is consistent with UN Resolutions my above is accurate and conversely so.

 

[Zebo]

No were not "stealing" it. It's like when your son takes $20 from you wallet and buys you a tie for fathers day.. It's a sweet allocation of funds. I'm just glad I keep my guns in the safe

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Who's crazy?
----------------------
Good grief, you know my answer to that. We have met the enemy and he is us.

Crazy IS a relative term eh Moonbeam?

That's what we all say... the relatives that is..

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: etech
moonie,

Does that mean we have to be creative about stealing the oil? I never understood fine print.

Only if you are so full of hate and bitterness that you can only see bad in any action. That does seem to be the only thing that you can do.

I guess it's possible moonie that you wouldn't intentionally lie. I don't think you even realize when you do it anymore.

Sounds like you're seeing bad in my actions. That does seem to be the only thing you can do.

I guess it is possible you wouldn't know the truth from a lie.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: etech
moonie,

Does that mean we have to be creative about stealing the oil? I never understood fine print.

Only if you are so full of hate and bitterness that you can only see bad in any action. That does seem to be the only thing that you can do.

I guess it's possible moonie that you wouldn't intentionally lie. I don't think you even realize when you do it anymore.

Sounds like you're seeing bad in my actions. That does seem to be the only thing you can do.

I guess it is possible you wouldn't know the truth from a lie.

moonie, you said that the US is stealing the oil.

Either you can prove that statement or you are a liar. That should be simple enough for even you to understand.