Is that really fake news??? -- <font size = "4">The Drunks Bar </font size "4">

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:51:54 01/15/03 Wed
Author: NKLS Cody
Subject: Is that really fake news???
In reply to: Sarah 's message, "real news is depressing! Give me fake news!" on 07:38:55 01/15/03 Wed

That's exactly how the events from the past month are shaping up; GW's handlers have told him to say: "We must play hardball with North Korea by attacking Iraq."

Message going out to all interested drunks: please attend your local peace march activities this weekend, or take a huge road trip to DC for the big one on the Capitol Mall. It's imparative to send a message to the Bush misadministration that we will not partake in this phony war on terrorism any longer!!!

Look at this latest survey from PollingReport.com:

"As you may know, the Bush Administration says it has evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or programs to develop them. On January 27th, United Nations weapons inspectors will report their findings so far to the UN. If the inspectors have not found any evidence, what should the United States do: invade Iraq with ground troops based on the evidence the Bush Administration says it has, invade Iraq with ground troops only after the UN inspectors find evidence of weapons, or not invade Iraq with ground troops regardless of what the UN inspectors find?"

Invade based on Bush Administration evidence 23%

Invade only after UN inspectors find evidence of weapons 52%

Not invade regardless of what UN inspectors find 19%

No Opinion 6%

Plan: Tap Iraq's Oil

U.S. considers seizing revenues to pay for occupation, source says

by Knut Royce NEWSDAY.com

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usoil103081930jan10.story

WASHINGTON - Bush administration officials are seriously considering proposals
that the United States tap Iraq's oil to help pay the cost of a military
occupation, a move that likely would prove highly inflammatory in an Arab world
already suspicious of U.S. motives in Iraq.

Officially, the White House agrees that oil revenue would play an important
role during an occupation period, but only for the benefit of Iraqis, according to
a National Security Council spokesman.

Yet there are strong advocates inside the administration, including in the
White House, for appropriating the oil funds as "spoils of war," according to a
source who has been briefed by participants in the dialogue.

"There are people in the White House who take the position that it's all the
spoils of war," said the source, who asked not to be further identified. "We [the
United States] take all the oil money until there is a new democratic
government [in Iraq]."

The source said the Justice Department has urged caution. "The Justice
Department has doubts," he said. He said department lawyers are unsure "whether any of
it [Iraqi oil funds] can be used or has to all be held in trust for the people
of Iraq."

Another source who has worked closely with the office of Vice President Dick
Cheney said that a number of officials there too are urging that Iraq's oil funds
be used to defray the cost of occupation.

Jennifer Millerwise, a Cheney spokeswoman, declined to talk about "internal
policy discussions."

Using Iraqi oil to fund an occupation would reinforce a prevalent belief in the
Mideast that the conflict is all about control of oil, not rooting out weapons
of mass destruction, according to Halim Barakat, a recently retired professor
of Arab studies at Georgetown University.

"It would mean that the real ... objective of the war is not the
democratization of Iraq, not getting rid of Saddam, not to liberate the Iraqi people, but a
return to colonialism," he said. "That is how they [Mideast nations] would
perceive it."

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of an occupation would
range from $12 billion to $48 billion a year, and officials believe an
occupation could last 1 1/2 years or more.

And Iraq has a lot of oil. Its proven oil reserves are second in the world only
to Saudi Arabia's. But how much revenue could be generated is an open question.
The budget office estimates Iraq now is producing nearly 2.8 million barrels a
day, with 80 percent of the revenues going for the United Nations Oil for Food
Program or domestic consumption. The remaining 20 percent, worth about $3
billion a year, is generated by oil smuggling and much of it goes to support Saddam
Hussein's military. In theory that is the money that could be used for
reconstruction or to help defer occupation costs.

Yet with fresh drilling and new equipment Iraq could produce much more. By some
estimates, however, it would take 10 years to fully restore Iraq's oil
industry. Conversely, if Hussein torches the fields, as he did in Kuwait in 1991, it
would take a year or more to resume even a modest flow. And, of course, it is
impossible to predict the price of oil.

Laurence Meyer, a former Federal Reserve Board governor who chaired a Center
for Strategic and International Studies conference in November on the economic
consequences of a war with Iraq, said that conference participants deliberately
avoided the question of whether Iraq should help pay occupation or other costs.
"It's a very politically sensitive issue," he said. "... We're in a situation
where we're going to be very sensitive to how our actions are perceived in the
Arab world."

Meyer said officials who believe Iraq's oil could defer some of the occupation
costs may be "too optimistic about how much you could increase [oil production]
and how long it would take to reinvest in the infrastructure and reinvest in
additional oil."

An administration source said that most of the proposals for the conduct of the
war and implementation of plans for a subsequent occupation are being drafted
by the Pentagon. Last month a respected Washington think tank prepared a
classified briefing commissioned by Andrew Marshall, the Pentagon's influential
director of Net Assessment, on the future role of U.S. Special Forces in the global
war against terrorism, among other issues. Part of the presentation recommended
that oil funds be used to defray the costs of a military occupation in Iraq,
according to a source who helped prepare the report.

He said that the study, undertaken by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments, concluded that "the cost of the occupation, the cost for the
military administration and providing for a provisional [civilian] administration, all
of that would come out of Iraqi oil." He said the briefing was delivered to the
office of Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of Defense and one of the
administration's strongest advocates for an invasion of Iraq, on Dec. 13.

Steven Kosiak, the center's director of budget studies, said he could not
remember whether such a recommendation was made, but if it was it would only have
been "a passing reference to something we did."

Asked whether the Pentagon was now advocating the use of Iraqi oil to pay for
the cost of a military occupation, Army Lt. Col. Gary Keck, a spokesman, said,
"We don't have any official comment on that."

NSC spokesman Mike Anton said that in the event of war and a military
occupation the oil revenues would be used "not so much to fund the operation and
maintaining American forces but for humanitarian aid, refugees, possibly for
infrastructure rebuilding, that kind of thing."

But the source who contributed to the Marshall report said that its conclusions
reflect the opinion of many senior administration officials. "It [the oil] is
going to fund the U.S. military presence there," he said. "... They're not just
going to take the Iraqi oil and use it for Iraq's purpose. They will charge the
Iraqis for the U.S. cost of operating in Iraq. I don't think they're planning
as far as I know to use Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion, but they are going to
use it to pay for the occupation."

Copyright (c) 2003, Newsday, Inc.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

you're right, Cody! -- Sarah, 14:02:12 01/15/03 Wed
- Retreading is very effective -- NKLS Cody, 14:16:55 01/16/03 Thu