I dont believe this !

[cpt.broncko]

hi guys,



im opening every day www.wikipedia.de for new news etc. and what im reading today?

"
Knapp zwei Drittel aller Ölreserven des Irak sollen in Kürze exklusiv an Konzerne aus den USA und Großbritannien verkauft werden. "

"two thirds of all Iraq's oil reserves will be sell exclusively to companies from the USA and Great Britain."

I cant believe this !!! And thats why the iraqis are dying?
After this I hope that the iraqis will start a independence war in their own country ...

[ViriiK]

Uhmm, it's the same case in all OPEC countries? Venezuela works with CITGO in pretty much all their oil reserves although the PSDVA owns CITGO. TotalFinaElf SA works in alot of countries such as Sudan, Iran, and of course at the time Iraq during the Oil-For-Food Scandal.

Also it's up to the Oil Ministry of Iraq on who to award the contracts to. Even under the constitution of Iraq which it states that oil and gas resources belong to the people; that the federal government, with regional and provincial governments, will manage current resources and equitably share revenue; and that together they will develop a strategy for managing future discoveries based on market principles and encourage investment.

[Rammy]

Uhmm, it's the same case in all OPEC countries? Venezuela works with CITGO in pretty much all their oil reserves although the PSDVA owns CITGO. TotalFinaElf SA works in alot of countries such as Sudan, Iran, and of course at the time Iraq during the Oil-For-Food Scandal.

Also it's up to the Oil Ministry of Iraq on who to award the contracts to.

Was it the case prior to the war?

[gaz]

I cant believe this !!! And thats why the iraqis are dying?

No, Iraqis are dying because idiots like to blow them up.

[ViriiK]

Was it the case prior to the war?Yes. Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline was designed by British Petroleum and it's not in Britian but rather in Azerbaijan & Turkey. The top 4 oil corporations in the world works in areas of the world not of their own home country.

[Argyll]

It doesn't make for good reading,it just makes the whole "All about oil" case more compelling!!

[Chuckie]

If GWB really decided to go to Iraq to free the world of Saddam and WMD's then why would he be so interested in such a large portion of their oil? Why wouldn't he just settle for a small portion of oil, or even none, just to silence his critics who say Iraq was just about oil.

Does he not care what the world or the US thinks anymore? I beginning to think so.

[rhino]

there is this thing called the reality of life, and the reality is that worlds economy is run on oil

[catalyst]

did he ever?

[Snoshi]

Not a new oil thread..

[Chuckie]

there is this thing called the reality of life, and the reality is that worlds economy is run on oil

The problem is that GW and everyone else in Washington went out of their way to say Iraq wasn't about the oil...

[deccantrap]

No, Iraqis are dying because idiots like to blow them up.

All the Iraqis dying arent because insurgents are blowing them up.

[JTAR7242]

All the Iraqis dying arent because insurgents are blowing them up.
Directly or indirectly, yes, they are.


The American and other multinational forces never just start shooting at random over there. If nobody attacked them, there would be peace, and no Iraqis would be dying from combat related injuries.



As far as the oil thing:

Duh. If the US and Britain liberated Iraq, it only makes sense that they hold the biggest right to purchase the oil reserves there. Just like everyone whining that Bush gave the contracts over there to American and British companies, if your countries wanted a stake in iraq, they should have participated, not stood back and watched. I know many of the Yurps had financial ties to the old Saddam regime and they're mad those are gone, but it is always good to back teh winning horse and not the longshot on the broken down nag.

[Secret Squirrel]

My sadness at the privatisation of Iraq

IF DEMOCRACY is the goal of American policy in Iraq, as President Bush repeatedly says it is — not eliminating WMD, not controlling Middle East oil, not removing a dictator guilty of genocide — then with the Sunni walkout from government and Kurdish intransigence over federalism and Kirkuk, that policy is nearing breakdown. But democracy was always only an after-thought, and anyway never really on offer in the first place.

Before the US proconsul Paul Bremer left Baghdad, he enacted 100 orders as chief of the occupation authority in Iraq. Perhaps the most infamous was Order 39 which decreed that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatised, that foreign companies could have complete control of Iraqi banks, factories and mines, and that these companies could transfer all of their profits out of Iraq. The “reconstruction” of the country amounts in effect to wholesale privatisation of the economy and is little short of economic colonisation.

These laws will not be reversed while 140,000 US troops remain in the country, or a network of US military bases planned to be retained in Iraq for a much longer period. Aid for rebuilding the electricity and water services, the oil industry, and the legal and security systems will reside with the US Embassy for many years to come.

If all 100 orders are taken together, they set the overall legal framework for overriding foreign exploitation of Iraq’s domestic market. They cover almost all facets of the economy, including Iraq’s trading regime, the mandate of the Central Bank, and regulations governing trade union activities. Collectively, they lay down the foundations for the real US objective in Iraq, apart from keeping control of the oil supply, namely the imposition of a neoliberal capitalist economy controlled and run by US transnational corporations.

But what is remarkable about these laws is not only their overall degree of control, but their far-reaching application. Order 81, for example, has the status of binding law over “patent industrial design, undisclosed information, integrated circuits and plant variety” — a degree of detailed supervision normally associated with a Soviet command-and-control economy. While historically the Iraqi Constitution prohibited private ownership of biological resources, the new US-imposed patent law introduces a system of monopoly rights over seeds. This is virtually a takeover of Iraqi agriculture.

The rights granted to US plant breeding companies under this order include the exclusive right to produce, reproduce, sell, export, import and store the plant varieties covered by intellectual property right for the next 20-25 years. During this extended period nobody can plant or otherwise use plants, trees or vines without compensating the breeder.

In the name of agricultural reconstruction this new law deprives Iraqi farmers of their inherent right, exercised for the past 10,000 years in the fertile Mesopotamian arc, to save and replant seeds. It enables the penetration of Iraqi agriculture by Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow Chemical and other corporate giants that control the global seed trade. Food sovereignty for the Iraqi people has therefore already been made near-impossible by these new regulations.

This is merely one example of the pervasiveness of the orders left behind by Bremer. But their impact is largely concentrated in the near-monopolisation by US corporations of the economic contracts awarded by the US-dominated Coalition Provisional Authority. Overwhelmingly they have been allocated to big US companies, notably Bechtel and Halliburton, which happens to be Vice-President **** Cheney’s former company, sometimes on a secret no-bid basis — such as the contract to repair and operate oil wells awarded to the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root.

Almost no contracts have gone to UK companies, apart from one to repair and rebuild the Baghdad sewage system. For oilfield repairs over a two-year period the contracts have been worth some $7 billion. For the little known and disarmingly entitled Logistics Civil Augmentation Programme, the contracts value is far greater.

The funding of these massive contracts has largely come from the Iraqi oil revenues expropriated for US corporate use. The oil money is held in the US Federal Reserve, and the US Government is determined to keep control of it under an international board. The US has already spent around half the revenue, mainly on these long-term contracts with their construction companies. Of course John Negroponte, who was then the American Ambassador to Iraq, made clear that these enormous funds will be managed in consultation with the Iraqi Government, but there can be little doubt where the decision-making power will lie.

Whether this enforced takeover of the economy and imposed privatisation across the board of all the main economic sectors is in accordance with international law is now much disputed. But whether it can be reversed when America holds all the military, political and economic cards is another matter. The only way for the US authorities to sidestep the potential conflict is to ensure that the new Iraqi Government is pliant enough not to press for full sovereignty. Paul Bremer thought of that too.

His Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) effectively gives the Kurds, the most pro-American section of the population, a veto over the new constitution because the TAL itself states that it can only be amended by a 75 per cent vote in parliament. The Kurds hold more that 25 per cent of the seats.

link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1731547,00.html)

[Count Lippe]

hi guys,



im opening every day www.wikipedia.de (http://www.wikipedia.de) for new news etc. and what im reading today?

"
Knapp zwei Drittel aller Ölreserven des Irak sollen in Kürze exklusiv an Konzerne aus den USA und Großbritannien verkauft werden. "

"two thirds of all Iraq's oil reserves will be sell exclusively to companies from the USA and Great Britain."

I cant believe this !!! And thats why the iraqis are dying?
After this I hope that the iraqis will start a independence war in their own country ...

You made the mistake of thinking that Wikipedia is an appropriate source of information. It might be helpful to get some knowledge about certain things, but don't forget that anyone can write stuff on that site and put the label of truth on it. So don't expect all articles to be fair and balanced!;)

You know, it's not really new that companies fron the coalition countries will get most contracts and business opportunities out of Iraq, my friend...

[Teaser]

No, Iraqis are dying because idiots like to blow them up.

Yes but what MAKES them blow each other up?

[jetsetter]

Don't be stupid guys. Who do you think would be getting the oil? It's a question that is easy to answer if you think about it.

[Teaser]

Don't be stupid guys. Who do you think would be getting the oil? It's a question that is easy to answer if you think about it.

The Americans offcourse get the oil and money that follows. Nice avatar

[sickofpretenders]

Yes, what an evil conspiracy. To please a few morons America should not try to recover a single dime of the to date 222+Billion dollars spent on the war and just to please some whining losers award all major contracts to french and german companies.

Of course trying to please the "its just about oil" crowd is impossible because they whine about anything America does but just this once, after all the money spent on the war, USA should stick it to themselves, buy a solar panel and not buy any of that oil. As well as that they should keep rebuilding the country off the taxpaying American's back and USAID contributions to iraq (currently $3 billion) should double, but all be outsourced to companies from countries that were against the war.

Lets not forget its not enough that USA should pay to rebuild the country, they should make sure not a cent of that money ever makes it back to the US.

Oh what an absurd view of the world so many people have.

[00]

whatttt???

and all that time i thought that we went into Iraq for the sand reserves...

[usm2b]

http://lindasog.com/pics/whoneedsoil.jpg


yeah!!! who needs oil!

[rhino]

The problem is that GW and everyone else in Washington went out of their way to say Iraq wasn't about the oil...
wait one sec, Im pretty sure they said " its not only about oil"

[Bia]

Bahh...

Question is....what will humans do when the oil is all gone.

[Argyll]

There are very few British company's with massive contracts in Iraq by the way! ;)

[JTAR7242]

Yes but what MAKES them blow each other up?
The foolish ideals of idiotic fanatics?

[rk]

What can't you believe? That your wiki is a piece of leftist garbage? That the author doesn't understand basic economics? That the Iraqi government is presently amassing huge debts to the Americans?

In any event, oil is globally demanded fungible product. It doesn't matter whether it's refined in the states or in Timbuktu; if supply is significantly boosted the price will drop across the board. All of that Russian oil we would have otherwise imported will now have to be sold elsewhere.

If you're looking to blame someone for making gasoline inaccessable you need look no further than your own governments. The taxes you Europeans pay for petrol would send most of your trans-atlantic bretheren into cardiac arrest.

hi guys,


"two thirds of all Iraq's oil reserves will be sell exclusively to companies from the USA and Great Britain."

I cant believe this !!! And thats why the iraqis are dying?
After this I hope that the iraqis will start a independence war in their own country ...

[2Sheds_Jackson]

What's all the hubub? What's wrong with this? The statement is clear;

"two thirds of all Iraq's oil reserves will be sell exclusively to companies from the USA and Great Britain"

That means, first of all, that one third of Iraq's oil reserves will not be sold exclusively to companies from the USA and GB. Apparently that's not good enough - they helped 0% but are not satisfied with benefiting 33%. Did Europe buy the Louis Farrakhan Million Man Math home study course?

And the operative word in the sentence, the one we should be paying attention to - is not "oil" or "USA" or "GB" - it is sell. For once, the people of Iraq will benefit and profit from the resources of their own country. Isn't who they decide to sell to rather less important?

How exactly does Bush benefit from this arrangement? The oil is being sold at market value, not trucked off at gunpoint. And of course Bush has the freedom to invest heavily in any oil firm he wants. If he was truly trying to pull a fast one, he'd tell Iraq they could only sell to companies from Azerbaklchikisan, then he'd buy an assload of their stock.

Taxpayers in the US and in GB paid for the great majority of OIF's expenses. If one were to do the math, perhaps a figure of 2/3 would be too conservative. Thus - should those same taxpayers not benefit from engaging the people of Iraq on a standard capitalist basis? US and GB's oil companies are among those who paid for the war via confiscatory tax policies. Why should they not get a shot at making the $ back. And why should I, as an American who will be paying for the war well into my retirement years, not benefit as well?

It's rather amusing to see all the people who refused to help bake the cake, now stand with hands on hips demanding a slice. I think no more than 1/3 of that cake would be appropriate. If you want more next time, bring some eggs with you.

[Weasel]

Not very surprising. Freedom and liberation have to be financed. rofl

[Kersh]

Once again, 2Sheds has completely summed the situation up. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[nognig]

Once again, 2Sheds has completely summed the situation up. I couldn't have said it better myself.

No ****, 2Sheds seems to be one of the few that get it.

The lefts gets all worked up about nothing.

NN

[Weasel]

Wasn´t one of the insurgents slogans "They come and steel our oil"? :p

[Pille1234]

What's all the hubub? What's wrong with this? The statement is clear;

"two thirds of all Iraq's oil reserves will be sell exclusively to companies from the USA and Great Britain"

That means, first of all, that one third of Iraq's oil reserves will not be sold exclusively to companies from the USA and GB. Apparently that's not good enough - they helped 0% but are not satisfied with benefiting 33%. Did Europe buy the Louis Farrakhan Million Man Math home study course?

I would have used italics for "exclusively", meaning even the last 33% may go to American companies. But that is not the point. The point is, you are talking about the treasury of the people of iraq. It absolutely doesn't matter how much money you or your government invested in Iraq for rebuilding. If the iraqi oil business needs to be privatized at all, (which I seriously doubt), than the company with the best offer should get the lot. Everything short of this is nothing but robbery on a national level. Rebuilding investments in Iraq by Washington are done solely to help the iraqi ppl to get back a nation in which it is worth living, freedom and democracy and all that. Trying to refinance the rebuilding effort with excluding foreign competitors (and therefore reducing the financial gain the iraqis will have) is the typical way how imperalistic countries tried to finance their colonies. Is this the true face of freedom & democracy I ask you?

And the operative word in the sentence, the one we should be paying attention to - is not "oil" or "USA" or "GB" - it is sell. For once, the people of Iraq will benefit and profit from the resources of their own country. Isn't who they decide to sell to rather less important?
Oh yeah they sell it how all the corrupt business men in Russia "legally" sold the countries resources to a few magnats. It is not less important who buys it if you reduce the number of competitors for obvious reasons.


Taxpayers in the US and in GB paid for the great majority of OIF's expenses. If one were to do the math, perhaps a figure of 2/3 would be too conservative. Thus - should those same taxpayers not benefit from engaging the people of Iraq on a standard capitalist basis? US and GB's oil companies are among those who paid for the war via confiscatory tax policies. Why should they not get a shot at making the $ back. And why should I, as an American who will be paying for the war well into my retirement years, not benefit as well?
Again the same. This is not a large scale investment in which the taxpayers try to get a return on investment, is it? I begin to think it is and maybe all the "it's about oil nerds" may in fact be right.



It's rather amusing to see all the people who refused to help bake the cake, now stand with hands on hips demanding a slice. I think no more than 1/3 of that cake would be appropriate. If you want more next time, bring some eggs with you.
Nothing amusing here. I do see a robbery taking place and I'm happy and proud that my country did not become one of those nasty little hanger-'on.
I always considered Iraq a strategic decision which was a benefit for the iraqi ppl too, although only as collateral advantage. Now I do see the whole Iraq mission is beeing corrupted or was even corrupted from the beginning, I don't know.

[Rifleman]

What's all the hubub? What's wrong with this? The statement is clear;

"two thirds of all Iraq's oil reserves will be sell exclusively to companies from the USA and Great Britain"

That means, first of all, that one third of Iraq's oil reserves will not be sold exclusively to companies from the USA and GB. Apparently that's not good enough - they helped 0% but are not satisfied with benefiting 33%. Did Europe buy the Louis Farrakhan Million Man Math home study course?

And the operative word in the sentence, the one we should be paying attention to - is not "oil" or "USA" or "GB" - it is sell. For once, the people of Iraq will benefit and profit from the resources of their own country. Isn't who they decide to sell to rather less important?

How exactly does Bush benefit from this arrangement? The oil is being sold at market value, not trucked off at gunpoint. And of course Bush has the freedom to invest heavily in any oil firm he wants. If he was truly trying to pull a fast one, he'd tell Iraq they could only sell to companies from Azerbaklchikisan, then he'd buy an assload of their stock.

Taxpayers in the US and in GB paid for the great majority of OIF's expenses. If one were to do the math, perhaps a figure of 2/3 would be too conservative. Thus - should those same taxpayers not benefit from engaging the people of Iraq on a standard capitalist basis? US and GB's oil companies are among those who paid for the war via confiscatory tax policies. Why should they not get a shot at making the $ back. And why should I, as an American who will be paying for the war well into my retirement years, not benefit as well?

It's rather amusing to see all the people who refused to help bake the cake, now stand with hands on hips demanding a slice. I think no more than 1/3 of that cake would be appropriate. If you want more next time, bring some eggs with you.

Good points indeed but I think Ike articulated very well what troubles many...

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." President Eisenhower - farewell address to the nation - Jan 16th 1961

The 1st Bilderberg Conference was held in 1954, was this what Ike was talking about?

Well as we know McNamara was Secretary of Defence (1961-1968) and resigned that position to become President of the World Bank (1968-1981) and a Bilderberger.

"...somebody has to take governments' place, and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it." - David Rockefeller - 1999

[bugkill]

i don't care if we went in for oil (i think that there were multiple reasons for going), i'm only concerned with the outcome. the biggest problem i have is with people trying to make a argument for when there is the "right" reason to go to war. in foreign wars, there is no such thing and people need to understand that. we may never know the main reason why we went into iraq, but does it really matter?

do you honestly believe that we can combat the terrorists (which are from the middle east) only in afghanistan? is it wrong to dispose of our enemy from a previous war (a war that ended with a cease fire, not surrender)? when is the "right" time to go to war? is it after most of our cities are destroyed (took 9/11 to go after OBL, who was a threat before he took 3,000 lives in a span of 2 hours)? why can't you reap some benefits when you were the one that got the job done?

you guys make it sound like we were on good footing with saddam and that is simply not the fact, the ones on the sidelines were buddies with him, not us. war is a tough decision to make, young men and women will die, but it has to be made at times. the only time a foreign war is a just cause is when you win and setup the very thing that you wanted to do. right now, some of the american people do not have the focus or will to see things through. they do not realize that if we do not finish what we began in iraq, we will have to go back there again later. our fate is tied to the middle east and there is no way around it. all the morally correct talk is nothing but "hot air" and is not reality.

[usafbalad]

I know we didnt go in for the oil, but I do remember seeing a few people having stickers that would say, "Kick their Ass and take their gas!". But of course, its only a joke. At least I hope so. I dont want to have to be going to Iraq a 2nd time just so I can fill the pockets of some rich guy in Texas.


do you honestly believe that we can combat the terrorists (which are from the middle east) only in afghanistan? is it wrong to dispose of our enemy from a previous war (a war that ended with a cease fire, not surrender)? when is the "right" time to go to war? is it after most of our cities are destroyed (took 9/11 to go after OBL, who was a threat before he took 3,000 lives in a span of 2 hours)?

True.

[-CROAT-SOLDIER-]

Well in my opinion thats just plain rude because they lied they said "Oh we arnt in iraq for the oil were there to free them from saddam" yes good excuse.They did help the iraquis but common dont lie about it everyone will find out soon enuf,We all know GWB sent amercans over to Free Iraq,Oil and possible some other reasons also just basically blow alot of **** up lol.Like why would amercans care about arabs when there driving planes into ur buildings and terrorising ur allies? dont make to much sence but none the less good move more oil more money more better equipment for there military,economy,etc...

[bugkill]

usafbalad,

what you just said is where the problem lies. people concern themselves with the "rich and powerful" and don't realize it's the corporations and companies that make our country strong. they are the very people that provide work and other resources to our country. yeah, it's easy for us down below to be wary of the rich, but not everyone can be rich or provide the very comforts that most americans enjoy.

i'm not supporting the rich or defending them, but no matter what you do, someone is going to make money or profit off of you. hell, the great thing about our country is that one day you may end up being one of the rich yourself. we have this class envy and my question is this, what impact do those protesters of oil companies or war have on your life? do they provide the food on your table? do they provide fuel for your car? tell me, what can they provide you, instead of halliburton? halliburton could give you a job or allow you to invest in stock, what about the protester? what can they provide you, besides complaining about the rich and powerful?

they talk about american imperialism whenever we go into another country (except during the clinton years, i guess it's ok when they have THEIR rich guy in office), but what is wrong with that? what is so bad about expansion and trying to get more countries to be "friendly" to us. did germany turn out bad? no. did japan turn into a disaster? no. the proof is in the pudding and look at the countries that we have liberated and see how they are doing compared to ones where we failed (Vietnam and north korea) to finish the job. we have a great country and there is nothing wrong with expanding our power. i don't care if the rich benefit because if i cared so much, i'll try to be rich myself.

[Machi]

...
I cant believe this !!! And thats why the iraqis are dying?
After this I hope that the iraqis will start a independence war in their own country ...

No one can realy hope, that the situation will be more escalating in the near future and more humans (iraqi or allied die.

CU Mark

[Belrick]

60 years later and nothings changed. Propoganda still works and nationalism blinds average Joe from the idea of abuse of power.

I cannot believe that there are people here who can justify GWB conquest of Iraq when they know full well that as a result the USA was able to ensure Iraqs oil contracts with the rest of the world was torn up and replaced with contracts with the US and GB.
Especially when they know that Iraq wasnt a threat to anyone which make sense because if they had of being able to retaliate with WMD like Nkorea or China then the US would never of invaded.

FFS my grandfather did his best to shoot fascist bstards but obviously there still breeding.

*disgusted with fascist Americans who have no excuse for being so gullible with such a good education system on hand*


"It is us today. It will be you tomorrow." -Haile Selassie

[danmuzi]

I don't like countries from US and Britain's getting bulk of the oil.. BUT having said that. who else are they gonna give oil contracts to? ....

[LtVacan]

If all the US wanted was oil, they could have ended the sanctions and bought all they wanted. Or they could have joined into the oil for food fraud and bought all the oil they wanted.

That sure would have been a much cheaper way to go.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I would have used italics for "exclusively", meaning even the last 33% may go to American companies.

Yes it may, if we offer them the best deal. That's the whole point, isn't it? If you want at that oil, offer them a better deal.



The point is, you are talking about the treasury of the people of iraq. It absolutely doesn't matter how much money you or your government invested in Iraq for rebuilding.

Our government? I work for our government and I can assure you that our government didn't spend a dime on Iraq. American taxpayers paid for, and will continue to pay of it.

At the end of WWII, Hungary, Finland and Romania were required to pay the USSR $3.8 billion (2005 dollars)...each. Italy had to split a payment of $4.6 billion between Greece, Yugoslavia and the USSR. The Netherlands wanted huge compensation and had actually planned to annex part of Germany. On the Western side, it was different. Rather than force them to pay, we gave them money (and loaned them some as well). The Marshall Plan rebuilding Europe cost the US taxpayer about $12.7 billion - which, by my half-assed guess would be about $97.5 billion in today's dollars. And we shelled that out not only to the nations we fought with, but those we fought against.

Now, why would stupid ol' America pay the very people we were just shooting at? Simple - because of the way the agreement was structured. All that money we were giving, and loaning, was used to buy goods exclusively from >gasp< the United States! Not the lowest bidder, but the US, take it or leave it. In addition, they had to be shipped to Europe via >second, slightly larger gasp< American Merchant Marine ships! The temerity! How dare we not open the bidding to all interested parties!

In other words - we're under no obligation to do a gat danged thing. Instead of pursuing imperialist dreams, which we have every ability to do, we instead give an opportunity for all to benefit. Some to a lesser extent, some to more - but the American taxpayer is not a bottomless pit of money and largess. The capitalist system works - but it must benefit those who will assume risk. Those nations who would not assume the risk and expense of liberating Iraq should not be rewarded for their...hmm I won't use the "c" word...for their elevated levels of nuance. I'm not surprised by some in Europe who look at this and seem like a deer in the headlights. These concepts are utterly alien to them, and we can hardly expect them to work hard to grasp such ideas when simple catch phrases are far easier to remember. p-)

[ABNINF]

That means, first of all, that one third of Iraq's oil reserves will not be sold exclusively to companies from the USA and GB. Apparently that's not good enough - they helped 0% but are not satisfied with benefiting 33%. Did Europe buy the Louis Farrakhan Million Man Math home study course?

rofl rofl rofl rofl

[Pille1234]

@2Sheds_Jackson

Your whole post is completely missing the point. I have no idea why you bring up ww2 or the marshall plan or reparation payments. Nore do I have the slightest idea why you bring up the US money donated with the condition to contract only American companies. I never talked about that.

Don't you see the difference between US money only for US companies and Iraqi Oil only for US companies? Since you totaly ignored my post I'm afraid you really don't see the difference.

and to your last paragraph...

In other words - we're under no obligation to do a gat danged thing. Instead of pursuing imperialist dreams, which we have every ability to do, we instead give an opportunity for all to benefit. Some to a lesser extent, some to more - but the American taxpayer is not a bottomless pit of money and largess. The capitalist system works - but it must benefit those who will assume risk. Those nations who would not assume the risk and expense of liberating Iraq should not be rewarded for their...hmm I won't use the "c" word...for their elevated levels of nuance. I'm not surprised by some in Europe who look at this and seem like a deer in the headlights. These concepts are utterly alien to them, and we can hardly expect them to work hard to grasp such ideas when simple catch phrases are far easier to remember.
Is that sarcasm? Oh how generous you are, youre giving the whole world an opportunity to benefit.
Again do you consider iraqi oil reparations for your cost of war? Remember, your government decided to attack Iraq. If you can't afford that from your "bottomless pit of taxpayers money", well that's actually your problem. Better think about that before you rush to war.

Btw isn't it interesting who makes decisions about iraqi oil? Gives a hint of who is in charge in Bagdad.

[ABNINF]

Pille, let's say hypothetically that it was ALL about oil. Let's look at what good has come from it. 30 MILLION people now have the free right to chose their destiny and speak for themselves without fear of being tortured and killed. A ruthless dictator that used chemical warfare on his own people and killed 5000 of them and fed people he didn't like to his dogs, is out of power and going to pay for his crimes. And if going to war over oil is bad, then staying out of a war solely because you're provided arms and equipment to a country is JUST AS WRONG. (i.e. France, Russia, etc...)

[Hemaworstje]

the Marshall plans were pure american interest , to stop "the communisme ", called Return on investment, simple economics rules, you needed that marketplace to sell your goods.so builded up this sickening coca-cola shaped Europe to my eyes lower standards and skipped the other countries with aid because of non profit markets.
you read it out of books, I have seen it happen ( i am old yes).
Every country being "taken" over, either by war, blackmail
( if you are not with us , then you are against us..),or media.

stats are flexible as a rubber band, depends on which stat you use, let's see how many countries were not under US control/influence before the War ,and how many now..

Its not about the oil , it's about the soil.
We both know that. just with different perspective.

[Mr.K]

the Marshall plans were pure american interest , to stop "the communisme ", called Return on investment, simple economics rules, you needed that marketplace to sell your goods.so builded up this sickening coca-cola shaped Europe to my eyes lower standards and skipped the other countries with aid because of non profit markets.
you read it out of books, I have seen it happen ( i am old yes).
Every country being "taken" over, either by war, blackmail
( if you are not with us , then you are against us..),or media.

stats are flexible as a rubber band, depends on which stat you use, let's see how many countries were not under US control/influence before the War ,and how many now..

Its not about the oil , it's about the soil.
We both know that. just with different perspective.

Well said.

[Pille1234]

Pille, let's say hypothetically that it was ALL about oil. Let's look at what good has come from it. 30 MILLION people now have the free right to chose their destiny and speak for themselves without fear of being tortured and killed. A ruthless dictator that used chemical warfare on his own people and killed 5000 of them and fed people he didn't like to his dogs, is out of power and going to pay for his crimes. And if going to war over oil is bad, then staying out of a war solely because you're provided arms and equipment to a country is JUST AS WRONG. (i.e. France, Russia, etc...)
I thought about that and disagree.

1) Did the situation for the iraqis improve? I doubt it, but realisticly, it is hard to tell. Dozens of Killings and Kidnappings per day, woman don't leave the house because they have to be afraid of kidnappings and rapes, those who dare to voice their opinion may find themselves with a bullet in the back floating in a river. Death squads take revenge for commited and suspected crimes in the past, insurgents and terrorists don't care for civil life and Allawi claims the human rights situation in iraq may well be worse than under Saddam.
I could go on with that as you could telling me how evil Saddam and his retarded gang was. Fact is probably that people could live under Saddam without constant fear for their live and fact is that in many parts of Iraq ppl live better today than before the war.

2) The more principal question is the following: Does immoral or criminal behaviour become acceptable because the vicitims on the receiving end do not suffer more than they have done anyway. Is a country allowed to steal foreign resources just because the resources were stolen by the countries own dictator anyway? One could argue that it doesn't matter for the Iraqis if they are killed by Saddams death squads or by collateral damage and ruthless insurgents and if their oil wealth is stolen by Saddam or by Halliburton doesn't matter either. Plus, you are building schools, hospitals, roads and so on.

If you look at the european past and their oversea territories, what some may call colonies you'll see that the Europeans where not always the strict and brutal slave drivers. They too built schools, hospitals, railroads, churches, roads and a lot of infrastructe and improved the standard of living for many. On the other hand of coures they were financing these effords with the colonies resources, including slave work. Now to find the way back to iraq, you do not depend on slave work, you use their resources. You let them pay for their own 'liberation' they never asked you for. If Iraq is ever going to become a success than it is the more a success for US oil companies, able to make a long term profit from that. Now the morale question comes up again: did you go to war to help the iraqi ppl or because of the economic benefit? If both holds true does it even matter? Yes it does, otherwise we could just take over every second african country. Considering their low standard of living we could always maximise our economic profit while at the same time improving their miserable life with a hospital here and a school there.

Sounds like Neocolonialism is a win win situation for all participants. Nonetheless I have a morale problem with that.

[Bulabash]

Whether its US, UK or any other company, the oil is still gonna end up in YOUR car, so if ure against it drive a bicycle.

[ABNINF]

1) Did the situation for the iraqis improve?

Yes, their situation has improved. They can vote, they can exercise free enterprise, which they are doing. Alot of my friends in Iraq have bought satellite phones over there, and purchase Iraqi phone cards to use them with. Alot of the new stores over there carry IPOD's and alot of other electronics. Under the new Iraqi government, Iraqis can even DISAGREE with them, and not have to be worried about being thrown in prison. At least it's not like this anymore:
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/1145/iraqiballot6lm.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[JTAR7242]

Nevermind that there isn't nearly enough oil in Iraq to justify the pain and suffering.


If we'd really wanted to go to war over oil, we could have invaded Venezuela. Less cultural backlash, less geopolitcal issues, far closer to home and surrounded by "allies".

Plus, nobody like Mexicans. ;)

[Argyll]

Yes, their situation has improved. They can vote, they can exercise free enterprise, which they are doing. Alot of my friends in Iraq have bought satellite phones over there, and purchase Iraqi phone cards to use them with. Alot of the new stores over there carry IPOD's and alot of other electronics. Under the new Iraqi government, Iraqis can even DISAGREE with them, and not have to be worried about being thrown in prison. At least it's not like this anymore:
http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/1145/iraqiballot6lm.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

You do realise that the vast majority of the stuff that's coming in such as ipods and stuff are stolen?........and that the mobiles and their sis cards are being monitored by the bad guys........Atheer is heavily monitored by the Iranians........and yes I've bought stuff from locals too,it's like buying pirated material anywhere else,it's either criminals or even shadier groups who are benefiting from the sales....an average Iraqi earns between $200 and $350 a month,you tell me how he's able to aquire 20 x 20gb Photo ipods?......

The phonecards are stolen,some are even already registered to other people,I used to get people call me on the sim I just paid $200(phone as well),and they'd tell me the number belonged to them..
A high portion of electrical goods are hijacked from convoys,and I know for a fact the Ali Baba's have people working on the inside at the sea port of Um Qasr...I'll tell you the most amazing thing I've seen though,driving through Kurdistan I was killing myself laughing at the numer of stalls and small shops selling automobile alloy wheels,and all for amazing knockdown prices,in Sulimaniyah there must have been 10-15 such places!!


Ok here's what a little SF birdy told me,and if you think about this latest revelation,it has a certain truth about it.There's an oil pipeline being built from the Oilfields in the South,that's running through the entire country,and will run through Turkey,so that the US no longer need to buy oil from Saudi Arabia,and will no longer have to send vessels into the Arabian Gulf,effectively cutting Saudi off,causing the price for crude oil to drop,the US will then use the Mediteranean as a shipping lane for it's oil,which shortens the journey,and can increase the turnaround......my SF buddy told me it's all about freezing out the Saudi's,who will no longer be the controlling Nation when it comes to oil!!........off course it might be a load of bull,but if you spent a few moments thinking about it,it makes a lot of sense!!

[2Sheds_Jackson]

@2Sheds_Jackson

Your whole post is completely missing the point. I have no idea why you bring up ww2 or the marshall plan or reparation payments. Nore do I have the slightest idea why you bring up the US money donated with the condition to contract only American companies. I never talked about that.

The specifics may be different, but the principle is the same. If the US has to spend blood and treasure to get something (whether it's Berlin or Baghdad), we are entitled to make some of it back as long as it's within the confines of fair play. If the argument is that it's wrong to do this in Iraq, then the Marshall plan was wrong too. And it's widely hailed as a huge success story for all involved.



Don't you see the difference between US money only for US companies and Iraqi Oil only for US companies? Since you totaly ignored my post I'm afraid you really don't see the difference.

What? Did you understand that under the Marshall plan it was not only US money - it was billions of loaned money - German, British, French money - loaned from US banks - for US goods. Foreign money that, if they wanted to participate, had to be spent on us.

The Iraqi oil is not being taken by us. It is being sold to us. Several companies will compete to buy it, driving up the price.



Is that sarcasm? Oh how generous you are, youre giving the whole world an opportunity to benefit.

Why yes, it is sarcasm. But it's true that if you snooze, you lose. Well, you snost, and so you lost. It's odd that I didn't hear people complaining about Saddam dealing exclusively with several European oil companies before the war - but now suddenly that they are shut out, the Europeans are all about an even playing field. ;-)



Again do you consider iraqi oil reparations for your cost of war? Remember, your government decided to attack Iraq. If you can't afford that from your "bottomless pit of taxpayers money", well that's actually your problem. Better think about that before you rush to war.

We did think, and this was the plan. Don't like it...get onboard next time.



Btw isn't it interesting who makes decisions about iraqi oil? Gives a hint of who is in charge in Bagdad.

For the time being, allowing Iraq to steer the bus on it's own would only result in that bus in a ditch somewhere...

[LaoSexMachine]

to the victor goes the spoils

[Freibier]

to the victor goes the spoils
If the victor is a thug, then yes.