The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The US and UK have stepped up their plans to hand over power to Iraq. Now it's fairly clear that they may only be doing so because of the increasing losses. But both nations seem to be making efforts to do a proper handover of power rather than just upping and legging it and leaving behind a mess of their own making. And that should be applauded.
Page:
If the Americans just pulled out I would not be happy. I would be angry. The United States of America wouldn't like me when I am angry...
Sorry, no links. A bloke said it on 'Fox and Friends' a while ago.
Skarra wrote:
> Which is easier to fix, pipe lines, or buildings. The coalition are
> working as fast as possible to rebuild, but as Iraq's oil is its
> biggest asset, isn't it wise to try to get it up and running again.
Sure, you can read the attention given to the oil as positive rebuilding or as motivated for the benefit of the american companies contracted in.
I figure they're both factors to some kind of extent, but we'll probably never really know how much.
The point was really just to show that oil production has been something of a priority.
> And the 1/3 estimate is a few weeks old, sorry. Even so, oil
> production is still down, and other rebuilding schemes, e.g.
> electricity, have already past their pre-war levels.
Any links? I'd be interested to take a look at the specifics behind that
> Which is easier to fix, pipe lines, or buildings. The coalition are
> working as fast as possible to rebuild, but as Iraq's oil is its
> biggest asset, isn't it wise to try to get it up and running again.
Sure, you can read the attention given to the oil as positive rebuilding or as motivated for the benefit of the american companies contracted in.
I figure they're both factors to some kind of extent, but we'll probably never really know how much.
The point was really just to show that oil production has been something of a priority.
> And the 1/3 estimate is a few weeks old, sorry. Even so, oil
> production is still down, and other rebuilding schemes, e.g.
> electricity, have already past their pre-war levels.
Any links? I'd be interested to take a look at the specifics behind that
Skarra wrote:
> And the 1/3 estimate is a few weeks old, sorry. Even so, oil
> production is still down, and other rebuilding schemes, e.g.
> electricity, have already past their pre-war levels.
All of which is fair enough, but although the figures are starting to look healthier, the people in Iraq still seem very vehement about getting the coalition forces out. The rebuilding of Iraq is of course to be praised, but whilst the coalition are viewed as occupiers, then there will be unrest.
> And the 1/3 estimate is a few weeks old, sorry. Even so, oil
> production is still down, and other rebuilding schemes, e.g.
> electricity, have already past their pre-war levels.
All of which is fair enough, but although the figures are starting to look healthier, the people in Iraq still seem very vehement about getting the coalition forces out. The rebuilding of Iraq is of course to be praised, but whilst the coalition are viewed as occupiers, then there will be unrest.
Dr Duck wrote:
> That depends on the figures you use. Down 1/3 seems either out of date
> or inaccurate.
> Figures I've heard recently put it at 90% of pre-war levels at most,
> 80 at lowest.
>
> When you compare that recovery to the rate of rebuilding of other
> damage it's clear where coalition priorities lie.
Which is easier to fix, pipe lines, or buildings. The coalition are working as fast as possible to rebuild, but as Iraq's oil is its biggest asset, isn't it wise to try to get it up and running again.
And the 1/3 estimate is a few weeks old, sorry. Even so, oil production is still down, and other rebuilding schemes, e.g. electricity, have already past their pre-war levels.
> That depends on the figures you use. Down 1/3 seems either out of date
> or inaccurate.
> Figures I've heard recently put it at 90% of pre-war levels at most,
> 80 at lowest.
>
> When you compare that recovery to the rate of rebuilding of other
> damage it's clear where coalition priorities lie.
Which is easier to fix, pipe lines, or buildings. The coalition are working as fast as possible to rebuild, but as Iraq's oil is its biggest asset, isn't it wise to try to get it up and running again.
And the 1/3 estimate is a few weeks old, sorry. Even so, oil production is still down, and other rebuilding schemes, e.g. electricity, have already past their pre-war levels.
That depends on the figures you use. Down 1/3 seems either out of date or inaccurate.
Figures I've heard recently put it at 90% of pre-war levels at most, 80 at lowest.
When you compare that recovery to the rate of rebuilding of other damage it's clear where coalition priorities lie.
Figures I've heard recently put it at 90% of pre-war levels at most, 80 at lowest.
When you compare that recovery to the rate of rebuilding of other damage it's clear where coalition priorities lie.
If the war was about oil, why is it that oil production is down 1/3 on pre-war levels? I mean, it it was about oil, why havn't they started draining the oil fields dry yet? Even if it's for the long term, the Iraqi's will still get paid for the oil.
I bet that's put a lot of pressure on the oil miners.
Just 8 months to drain the country dry? :-S
;-)
But yeah, they are TRYING to clear everything up.
As wars go, this one is the best one yet...
Just 8 months to drain the country dry? :-S
;-)
But yeah, they are TRYING to clear everything up.
As wars go, this one is the best one yet...
AfroJoe wrote:
> What's all this talk about cutting down the length of time that
> they're going to be staying in Iraq for? They'll not be leaving Iraq
> until June 2004 at the earliest, and this is considered now to be
> them leaving earlier than expected, so... how long were they actually
> planning on staying in Iraq for in the first place?
I think the feeling was that it would take several years; but I also think that people expected to be welcomed with open arms. If you believe that this was an imperialist war then you could argue that US troops were never going to leave and that America always intended for Iraq to become another military base in the Middle East, one designed to take pressure off Saudi Arabia's own dictatorship.
Belldandy - and I'm not being sarcastic - could probably give you a more accurate view of US military planning because - and now I am being sarcastic - he has priviliged access to the Pentagon.
> What's all this talk about cutting down the length of time that
> they're going to be staying in Iraq for? They'll not be leaving Iraq
> until June 2004 at the earliest, and this is considered now to be
> them leaving earlier than expected, so... how long were they actually
> planning on staying in Iraq for in the first place?
I think the feeling was that it would take several years; but I also think that people expected to be welcomed with open arms. If you believe that this was an imperialist war then you could argue that US troops were never going to leave and that America always intended for Iraq to become another military base in the Middle East, one designed to take pressure off Saudi Arabia's own dictatorship.
Belldandy - and I'm not being sarcastic - could probably give you a more accurate view of US military planning because - and now I am being sarcastic - he has priviliged access to the Pentagon.
What's all this talk about cutting down the length of time that they're going to be staying in Iraq for? They'll not be leaving Iraq until June 2004 at the earliest, and this is considered now to be them leaving earlier than expected, so... how long were they actually planning on staying in Iraq for in the first place?
This is a serious question, by the way. I've missed out on some important information somewhere down the line...
On a lighter note, good to see them actually planning a proper change around, instead of, as Light so correctly put it, "legging it" without doing anything really to sort the country out.
*Applauds*
This is a serious question, by the way. I've missed out on some important information somewhere down the line...
On a lighter note, good to see them actually planning a proper change around, instead of, as Light so correctly put it, "legging it" without doing anything really to sort the country out.
*Applauds*
Page: