Abject surrender

Kerryn Offord wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

After three years of UN control plus two years of independence, East
Timor's infrastructure is still in worse shape than Iraq's...


Well.. East Timor doesn't have billions of dollars worth of oil... that
always makes a difference. Plus the infrastructure was pretty well
completely destroyed by the Indonesians (what there was to start with)
in the 'war'.

Well it seems Iraq isn't really that different.

Iraq doesn't seem to have that much oil either, at the moment and for
a while to come. Certainly has the potential for abundant oil money
of course.

And Iraq's infrastructure was in none too good shape either, due to
decades of mismanagement, and finally the sanctions.


SMH

"Kerryn Offord" wrote in message
...


Well.. East Timor doesn't have billions of dollars worth of oil... that
always makes a difference.

Well actually it does.

The Bayu-Undan field alone contains proven reserves of 102 billion cubic
meters
(3.6 trillion cubic feet) of gas and associated hydrocarbon liquids,
the equivalent of about a billion barrels of oil.

Production and sale of the liquids is due to start in late 2003 or early
2004.
In phase two of the project, the group plans to pipe the gas onshore for
sale in Australia and export it to Asian markets in the form of LNG,
liquefied natural gas.

The East Timor zone is divided into three areas.

Area C, at the northern end, was administered
by Indonesia but is now being taken over by the UN on behalf of East Timor.

Area B, at the southern end, will remain under Australian control under the
terms on an agreement signed with Indonesia.

Area A, in the middle of the zone and accounting for about half its area,
was
administered by a joint Australian-Indonesian authority, which is now
becoming
a joint Australian-UN authority, with the UN acting for East Timor.

Taxes are split 50-50, after producing firms have recovered their costs.
The Bayu-Undan field is in Area A.

Keith

Iraq doesn't seem to have that much oil either, at the moment and for
a while to come. Certainly has the potential for abundant oil money
of course.

Actually, quite a bit. Production is now close to pre-war levels: 2.5
BILLION barrels a day, of which 1.9 billion barrels is exported. The
production by year-end could be above its 1991 levels and bumping up
against its then-OPEC quota.

This is good news. Good news about Iraq doesn't get much play in the
media in the U.S., and I suspect this is even more true in Europe.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: -- put Cubdriver in subject line!

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 22:29:52 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:

"Cub Driver" wrote in message

Allow me to point out that
Washington hasn't shown much enthusiasm for such a venture,
to put it mildly.

Considering that 'europe' basically asked the US to pay for it, what did
you expect ?


greg

--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Iraq doesn't seem to have that much oil either, at the moment and for
a while to come. Certainly has the potential for abundant oil money
of course.

Actually, quite a bit. Production is now close to pre-war levels: 2.5
BILLION barrels a day, of which 1.9 billion barrels is exported. The
production by year-end could be above its 1991 levels and bumping up
against its then-OPEC quota.


In the southern sector the fields around Basra are now at
127% of pre-war output and exports will rise now
the Khor al-Amaya terminal has been re-opened for the first
time since 1991

Keith

In article ,
Kerryn Offord wrote:

Cub Driver wrote:
Name one country where the UN, without major US help, did all of the
things you suggest above for *any* country.

East Timor

Wow. Hundreds of million (billions?) of dollars, hundreds of thousands
of personnel (millions?), and this is the sole successful military
intervention of the United Nations absent the U.S.? That's about the
most damning comment I've ever read on the UN.

The request was "Name one".. that's what I did...

But the thing is that you named "one-half." Their reconstruction
efforts are in the "drop in a bucket" range, and are *not* sufficient.
If the US/Iraq situation were judged on the same scale, we'd have been
finished in about July 2003.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
Cub Driver wrote:

Iraq doesn't seem to have that much oil either, at the moment and for
a while to come. Certainly has the potential for abundant oil money
of course.

Actually, quite a bit. Production is now close to pre-war levels: 2.5
BILLION barrels a day, of which 1.9 billion barrels is exported. The
production by year-end could be above its 1991 levels and bumping up
against its then-OPEC quota.

You misspelled "million."

If they were producing over a billion barrels a day, they'd empty out
all known reserves by July.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...


Well, I'm glad you've taken the UN off the table.


"Off the table" is a too strong expression. In the long term
the UN can make vital contributions by organizing elections,
arranging for the financing of rebuilding, etc. But Iraq is still
at war and the UN is not a fighting organisation. It is far too
early for them to take a significant role.


But what different course are you positing? Should Bush
have assembled a ghost government to impose upon Iraq?


He should have promoted self-assembly of a credible body
to represent Iraqi interests. A half-hearted attempt in that
direction was actually made, but it lacked a serious effort
to reconcile the large internal differences, and included
dubious creatures such as Chalabi.

He should also have formulated a policy towards the future
of Iraq that was more thought out than the "those that survived
the bombing lived long and happily ever after" line the
administration put out. Political reasons aside, such a policy
would have had military value; it might have been possible
to get Turkey on board.

--
Emmanuel Gustin


To Emmanuel Gustin et al: AGAIN, WHAT HAS ALL THIS GARBAGE TO DO WITH
REC.MILITARY. AVIATION

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"John Boyle" wrote in message
...

To Emmanuel Gustin et al: AGAIN, WHAT HAS ALL THIS
GARBAGE TO DO WITH REC.MILITARY. AVIATION

I admit that there is plenty of 'garbage' of off-topic messages
in the group, but I for one would never want to ban all off-topic
discussions. And I would certainly argue against banning all
political debate --- If you presume military issues to be entirely
separated from political issues, you are a few millenia too late.

--
Emmanuel Gustin


An all off topic ban would be an ideal goal. Unfortunately it won't happen.
Damn!

What we should talk about is military aviation...no airline stuff, no tanks,
no submarines, no artillery, no politics, no civilian arms, no cross posting
to unrelated groups.

My 'Block Sender' file grows larger daily.

Tex

Subject: Abject surrender
From: "Tex Houston" 777
Date: 4/27/04 8:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"John Boyle" wrote in message
...

To Emmanuel Gustin et al: AGAIN, WHAT HAS ALL THIS
GARBAGE TO DO WITH REC.MILITARY. AVIATION

I admit that there is plenty of 'garbage' of off-topic messages
in the group, but I for one would never want to ban all off-topic
discussions. And I would certainly argue against banning all
political debate --- If you presume military issues to be entirely
separated from political issues, you are a few millenia too late.

--
Emmanuel Gustin


An all off topic ban would be an ideal goal. Unfortunately it won't happen.
Damn!

What we should talk about is military aviation...no airline stuff, no tanks,
no submarines, no artillery, no politics, no civilian arms, no cross posting
to unrelated groups.

My 'Block Sender' file grows larger daily.

Tex



I find that being here a lot less helps. I used to be here almost every day now
I am down to less than once a week, if that. It is a lot better that way.
(sigh)





Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer