POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics' started by candletrader, Dec 8, 2002.

Which of these is most likely?

  1. Co-ordinated large-scale bombings of shopping malls and offices (similar to September 11, but not us

    12 vote(s)
    133.3%
  2. Biological attacks on schools, malls, airports etc

    5 vote(s)
    55.6%
  3. Highly co-ordinated machine gun mow-downs of crowds by suicide gangs

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. One person suicide bombings (similar to that carried out by Hamas) co-ordinated across numerous smal

    30 vote(s)
    333.3%
  5. Devastating car bombs set to go off amongst traffic queues of commuters crawling into work in the ru

    3 vote(s)
    33.3%
  6. It won't be as obvious as any of the above, but it will make September 11 look like a wasp bite com

    26 vote(s)
    288.9%
  7. No repercussions

    95 vote(s)
    1,055.6%
  1. roe

    roe

    How sad for the Iraqi people and what an embarrassment for the American and British people respectively
     
    #1511     Mar 11, 2003
  2. so roe, what loser country are you from ? whatever it is, it can't hold a candle to either the U.S. or the U.K. which is why you are so jealous and nasty. Poor You.
     
    #1512     Mar 11, 2003
  3. roe

    roe

    What loser country am I from? Does it really matter?
     
    #1513     Mar 11, 2003
  4. skeptic123

    skeptic123 Guest

    It really does not matter, given that you are ashamed of your own country.
     
    #1514     Mar 11, 2003
  5. skeptic123

    skeptic123 Guest

    The Iraqies are fine now under Saddam, but poor them when Americans/Brits come. Jeez man, you are really out of touch.
     
    #1515     Mar 11, 2003
  6. http://www.nytimes.com/

    Front page:

    Growing Number in U.S. Back War, Survey Finds

    Americans are growing impatient with the United Nations and say they would support military action against Iraq even if the Security Council refuses to support an invasion, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

    The poll found that 58 percent of Americans said the United Nations was doing a poor job in managing the Iraqi crisis, a jump of 10 points from a month ago. And 55 percent of respondents in the latest poll would support an American invasion of Iraq, even if it was in defiance of a vote of the Security Council.
     
    #1516     Mar 11, 2003
  7. msfe

    msfe

    Building block

    The surreptitious way the process for inviting engineering companies to submit bids for the rebuilding of Iraq was handled could lead to more trouble for the Bush administration.

    On the face of it, the Bush administration should get a pat on the back for inviting engineering companies to submit bids for reconstruction work in Iraq.

    The move shows foresight as the US contemplates the enormous task of rebuilding Iraq after a likely war and 10 years of crippling sanctions that have undone years of economic progress.

    But whatever kudos the White House may get for its foresight risks being undone by the surreptitious way the bid process was handled. Only five US companies have been invited to bid for contracts worth at least $900m (£563m) and the names on the list are bound to give conspiracy theorists a field day.

    The select group of companies includes Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, an oil services company, where the vice-president, Dick Cheney, held the position of chief executive from 1995 to 2000.

    Kellogg Brown & Root has already won a government contract to oversee firefighting operations at Iraqi oilfields after any US-led invasion, while the other companies also have strong ties to the US administration, including the construction giant Bechtel, the Fluor Corporation, and the Louis Berger group, already involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

    The winning company would get contracts to repair Iraqi health services, ports, airports, schools and other educational institutions. The Bush administration is only too aware of the need to be seen feeding hungry Iraqis, delivering clean water, and paying teachers and health workers to dispel accusations of imperial ambitions.

    To speed up the project, the US agency for international development (USAID) invoked special authority to solicit bids from just a few companies. The move bypassed the usual rules that would have permitted a wider array of companies to seek the contract, first reported by Time magazine and the Wall Street Journal.

    A USAID official defended the restricted nature of the contract on the grounds of urgency and because of the unique nature of the work. But that cut little ice with British unions, who criticised the move as typical of the US's "master and servant" attitude towards its only key ally on the eve of war.

    "Why should Britain have to share the blood in a war but British companies not be allowed to share in the economic upturn afterwards," said Richard O'Brien, a spokesman for Amicus, Britain's largest manufacturing union.

    An unseemly row over the spoils even before war has been fought is the last thing the Bush administration needs as it desperately seeks votes for a second resolution in the UN security council. But the US has only itself to blame for the clumsy way it has handled this particular aspect of reconstruction.

    The brouhaha over these initial contracts is just a foretaste of what is to come. The cost of reconstruction is bound to be a bone of contention in congress as the US faces record budget deficits and struggles to invigorate economy.

    So far the White House has been coy about putting a price tag for war and reconstruction so as not to alarm the American public on the vast amount of work and expense that will be needed. President Bush has only said that his administration would ask congress "at the appropriate time" for a supplemental spending bill outside the regular budget to pay for the war - estimated by analysts to cost anything between $50bn and $200bn.

    There has been talk about using revenue from Iraqi oil sales to pay for reconstruction and to pay back nations for the costs of fighting Iraq. But in reality, Iraqi oil is being used to meet the basic needs of Iraqis at subsistence level, so there will be little scope for using Iraqi oil to pay for reconstruction. Very probably, the scale of reconstruction will be so large that US companies will not be able to hog all the work, even if they wanted to.
     
    #1517     Mar 11, 2003
  8. Babak

    Babak

    This is an article re one business relationship between Iraq and Russia. There are many more (for example, 600 Russian engineers and workers left Iraqi oil fields earlier in the week). My question is this, why aren't such relationships and interests more widely known (especially through the media)?

    http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/03/11/042.html
     
    #1519     Mar 11, 2003
  9. Msfe, You don't support what the US wants to do.
    You aren't involved in the planning.

    What gives you the right to criticise ? None of your F..... business is it now ?

    freealways
     
    #1520     Mar 11, 2003