Iraq - 51st state?

Fredonia Coldheart · Post by **Fredonia Coldheart** » March 27, 2003, 11:25 am

From CNN today:

The diplomatic battle over Iraq's future could upstage the fight to secure United Nations authorization for the war.

Blair -- under fire at home for joining the Americans in an attack that lacked U.N. support -- wants full U.N. involvement in Iraq's administration if President Saddam Hussein is ousted.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Wednesday Washington would not cede control of Iraq to the United Nations.

"We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future," Powell told a House of Representatives subcommittee.

Looks like US is going for the oil after all ...

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 27, 2003, 11:27 am

Vive CUBA!!!!

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » March 27, 2003, 11:27 am

Well yah, Cheney's old company got the rights... Iraq=Nigeria with better oil

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 27, 2003, 11:39 am

Not the oil, the chance to have a political protectorate in the Middle East.

If you can't stretch your mind past oil.......

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 27, 2003, 11:44 am

This haas nothing to do with the oil. The UN has no right to Iraq. Read Colin Powells answer please

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 27, 2003, 11:45 am

Cartalas wrote:This haas nothing to do with the oil. The UN has no right to Iraq. Read Colin Powells answer please

Uhh this has everything to do with pharming

Trek · Post by **Trek** » March 27, 2003, 11:51 am

It probably has something to do with the UN not supporting the war. I would have been shocked had he said anything different, I did not read that as "The US gets the rights to the oil so neener neener". It is more of a position of the US wanting to be the controling factor in the 'rebuild'. Now weather the US or UN can come close to setting up a government in Iraq that anyone in the region likes is up for debate, thats not even throwing in the US and UN ability to completely fuck it up....again.

Ennia · Post by **Ennia** » March 27, 2003, 12:46 pm

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » March 27, 2003, 12:51 pm

Not the oil, the chance to have a political protectorate in the Middle East.

Because USA has had such good luck with changing regimes since WWII...

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 27, 2003, 1:01 pm

This haas nothing to do with the oil. The UN has no right to Iraq. Read Colin Powells answer please

Can you say that with a straight face? I uderstand that the US has hard feelings over the fact that the democratic UN wouldn't let us do what we wanted to, but even you must conceed that oil is a factor in the big picture.

If we are the humanitarians that we claim, whose sole purpose for a war on Iraq was to enforce a regime change because of a cruel dictator, we will be rolling up 90% of the Middle East after this conflict.

You are being naive if you actually believe we're doing this out of the kindness of hour collective hearts. Somewhere there is a payoff, and it's not going to be the warm fuzzy feeling of doing a good deed.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 27, 2003, 1:26 pm

Fairweather Pure wrote:
This haas nothing to do with the oil. The UN has no right to Iraq. Read Colin Powells answer please
Can you say that with a straight face? I uderstand that the US has hard feelings over the fact that the democratic UN wouldn't let us do what we wanted to, but even you must conceed that oil is a factor in the big picture.

If we are the humanitarians that we claim, whose sole purpose for a war on Iraq was to enforce a regime change because of a cruel dictator, we will be rolling up 90% of the Middle East after this conflict.

You are being naive if you actually believe we're doing this out of the kindness of hour collective hearts. Somewhere there is a payoff, and it's not going to be the warm fuzzy feeling of doing a good deed.

Fair it really does not matter what I think. I do think the area is of great intrest only because of Oil. But I also do have to agree with the U.S position on this. France,Russia and Germany can go screw themselves.

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » March 27, 2003, 1:36 pm

I don't think this means Iraq will be a state or even a protectorate. What I do think it means is that the US is not going to remove one dictator and then step back and allow whatever happens to happen. With the current state of things as they are, it would be ripe for a more extreme muslim leader to take charge similar to the Ayatollah's of Iran. Iraq has been a moderate and secular state in the Islamic world. However, Saddam really has only a triangular area around Baghdad that he could freely travel. The opposing muslims in the south are certainly strong and could conceivably move to secure a leadership position.

If the goal is to stabilize the region, the installation of yet another muslim government would not work. The US is most likely trying to prevent that from happening so we dont have to repeat this entire exercise.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 27, 2003, 1:51 pm

After Iraq, what country will be the 52nd state? I'm voting on N Korea.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » March 27, 2003, 2:00 pm

You guys should just invade Canada and up the number of states from 51 to 64

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 27, 2003, 3:01 pm

Fair it really does not matter what I think. I do think the area is of great intrest only because of Oil. But I also do have to agree with the U.S position on this. France,Russia and Germany can go screw themselves.

We need to let others be involved, despite bad feelings, or else we will further our already considerably tarnished reputation as conqerers. There is no love for America in the Middle East. We need a unified appraoch to this or else the cycle will repeat itself. Terrorist hits us, we gank them, thier kids and loved ones get pissed/grow up and hit us, ect.

America taking over Iraq does not disrupt that cycle. I would think it will end up promoting it.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » March 27, 2003, 3:44 pm

While we often disagree I think it would be best to have the UN involved with the reconstruction. Yes, I think the UN Security Council faild but every body of individuals or nations makes a mistake. As the "leader" part of our job is to make sure everything dose not fall apart for furture generations. We footed the cost for the way and stuck our neck out, so we just need to let other spend a little more on the reconstruction. Equils out. Hell, everyone knows I don't like France but I would even put a spot in for them. We have to be the leaders and set the example, not be the little bully that won't share after he gets a new toy.

Marb

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » March 27, 2003, 3:52 pm

Involved, yes. Put in charge, no. We are the ones who planned, started, and will finish this war, there is no reason to relinquish authority afterwards.

I may not have phrased it right but it goes kind of like this:

UN - Thanks for doing all the dirty work, dying, bleeding, and totally soiling your reputation. We'll take over now.

I don't think so.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 27, 2003, 3:54 pm

Do you think McDonald's will get the monopoly franchise in Iraq or Taco Bell?

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » March 27, 2003, 5:02 pm

If we are the humanitarians that we claim, whose sole purpose for a war on Iraq was to enforce a regime change because of a cruel dictator, we will be rolling up 90% of the Middle East after this conflict.

90% of the Middle East weren't stupid enough to tattoo a bulleye on their forehead and challenge the international diplomatic community to take the shot.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 27, 2003, 5:06 pm

Gurugurumaki wrote:Do you think McDonald's will get the monopoly franchise in Iraq or Taco Bell?

McDonald's won't fly there. The logo is too associated with American commercial imperialism.

They would have to make a shadow company and totally rebrand their service. Call it something like Kholasch Kholesch or something.

retiredwikit · Post by **retiredwikit** » March 27, 2003, 5:11 pm

I'm not up on my religions so don't critize me if I am wrong in what I am about to say.

Isn't Iraq a muslim country. Aren't they the ones that avoid meat or am I thinking of a different religion? If I am right, that would be the sole reason McDonald's wouldn't fly.

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 27, 2003, 5:13 pm

Voronwë wrote:
Gurugurumaki wrote:Do you think McDonald's will get the monopoly franchise in Iraq or Taco Bell?
McDonald's won't fly there. The logo is too associated with American commercial imperialism.

They would have to make a shadow company and totally rebrand their service. Call it something like Kholasch Kholesch or something.

How about Taco Allah

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 27, 2003, 5:22 pm

burka king

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 27, 2003, 5:23 pm

Krispy Kremes new Middle east Division

Krispy Kurds

masteen · Post by **masteen** » March 27, 2003, 5:26 pm

Animalor wrote:You guys should just invade Canada and up the number of states from 51 to 64

Like we'd waste 13 potential states on Canada. We'd just extend the borders of Michigan, Montana, Washington, ect. to include our new subjects, err I mean citizens.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » March 27, 2003, 5:28 pm

kyoukan type-R wrote:burka king

Well its better then a Hair Net

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 27, 2003, 5:34 pm

masteen wrote:Like we'd waste 13 potential states on Canada. We'd just extend the borders of Michigan, Montana, Washington, ect. to include our new subjects, err I mean citizens.

at least your national average test scores would go up

masteen · Post by **masteen** » March 27, 2003, 5:37 pm

I'm sure we'd find a way to dumb down them uppity Canadian kids.

So when do we start carpet bombing Montreal?

Gurugurumaki · Post by **Gurugurumaki** » March 27, 2003, 5:38 pm

masteen wrote:I'm sure we'd find a way to dumb down them uppity Canadian kids.

So when do we start carpet bombing Montreal?

Why would we do that, when they would just surrender?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 27, 2003, 5:51 pm

hey say what you want about quebec they are the only french population in the world that hasn't surrendered to the germans at least twice.

Arsecn · Post by **Arsecn** » March 27, 2003, 5:56 pm

masteen wrote:I'm sure we'd find a way to dumb down them uppity Canadian kids.

So when do we start carpet bombing Montreal?

SEND IN TEH KITTENS!!1!

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » March 27, 2003, 6:13 pm

retiredwikit wrote:I'm not up on my religions so don't critize me if I am wrong in what I am about to say.

Isn't Iraq a muslim country. Aren't they the ones that avoid meat or am I thinking of a different religion? If I am right, that would be the sole reason McDonald's wouldn't fly.

Muslims eat meat, just not certain kinds like pork. Hindus are the ones who dont eat cows. It is sacred to them.

retiredwikit · Post by **retiredwikit** » March 27, 2003, 7:11 pm

Adelrune Argenti wrote:
retiredwikit wrote:I'm not up on my religions so don't critize me if I am wrong in what I am about to say.

Isn't Iraq a muslim country. Aren't they the ones that avoid meat or am I thinking of a different religion? If I am right, that would be the sole reason McDonald's wouldn't fly.
Muslims eat meat, just not certain kinds like pork. Hindus are the ones who dont eat cows. It is sacred to them.

Gotcha, thanks for the correction Adelrune

Kargyle · Post by **Kargyle** » March 27, 2003, 8:00 pm

Actually Muslims are only supposed to eat meat that is halal, so I know OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of Muslims that rarely eat meat because there aren't many restraunts in the US that have meat that is halal.

Spangaloid_PE · Post by **Spangaloid_PE** » March 27, 2003, 10:13 pm

some lesbians eat meat.

Legenae · Post by **Legenae** » March 27, 2003, 10:36 pm

retiredwikit wrote:I'm not up on my religions so don't critize me if I am wrong in what I am about to say.

Isn't Iraq a muslim country. Aren't they the ones that avoid meat or am I thinking of a different religion? If I am right, that would be the sole reason McDonald's wouldn't fly.

No, they can eat meat, except pork.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 28, 2003, 12:09 pm

Kargyle wrote:Actually Muslims are only supposed to eat meat that is halal, so I know OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of Muslims that rarely eat meat because there aren't many restraunts in the US that have meat that is halal.

There are plenty of restaurants in and butcher shops in Toronto that offer halal meat. I guess because there's a lot of ragheads and camel jockeys living here.
Seriously, every west indian restaurant has to serve halal otherwise they'd go out of business.

The following are considered haram:

Pork and pork products
Animals improperly butchered
Animals that are dead before being butchered
Animals killed in the name of anyone other than Allah
Alcohol
Carnivorous animals without external ears
Blood and blood by-products

There are other grey areas concerning chemicals and perservatives in meats but are not covered in the Koran.