Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on August 26, 2008, 03:13:11 PM
-
What is the evidence that we (the United States government) went to war in Iraq to obtain control of and/or profit from Iraq's oil?
Assuming such evidence exists (whatever it is), doesn't seem like we were too successful.
-
What is the evidence that we (the United States government) went to war in Iraq to obtain control of and/or profit from Iraq's oil?
Assuming such evidence exists (whatever it is), doesn't seem like we were too successful.
Oh boy...must be a Christian thing.
-
O.K. One knucklehead nonresponse. ::)
Next? :)
-
What is the evidence that we (the United States government) went to war in Iraq to obtain control of and/or profit from Iraq's oil?
Assuming such evidence exists (whatever it is), doesn't seem like we were too successful.
John McCain says so :D
-
John McCain says so :D
He was just agreeing with Bush (12-14-06) and Greenspan.
He is a child. He doesn't understand things like global energy systems.
“I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middel East”
-
Secret U.S. Plans For Iraq's Oil
By Greg Palast
Reporting for BBC Newsnight (London)
Why was Paul Wolfowitz pushed out of the Pentagon onto the World Bank -- The answer lies in a 323-page document, secret until now, indicating that the allies of Big Oil in the Bush Administration have defeated neo-conservatives and their chief Wolfowitz. BBC Television Newsnight tells the true story of the fall of the neo-cons. An investigation conducted by BBC with Harper's magazine will also reveal that the US State Department made detailed plans for war in Iraq -- and for Iraq's oil -- within weeks of Bush's first inauguration in 2001.
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protestors claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.
In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists."
"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.
Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.
An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.
Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.
Secret sell-off plan
The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by yet another secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan, crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.
The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Fadhil Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel. Mr. Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, flew to the London meeting, he told Newsnight, at the request of the State Department.
Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.
"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, your losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable," said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.
"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatization is coming."
Privatization blocked by industry
Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.
Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatization of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."
The chosen successor to Mr Carroll, a Conoco Oil executive, ordered up a new plan for a state oil company preferred by the industry.
Ari Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields. He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision.
Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."
New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favored by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004, Harper's discovered, under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas. Former US Secretary of State Baker is now an attorney. His law firm, Baker Botts, is representing ExxonMobil and the Saudi Arabian government.
Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatization. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.
Jaffe said "There is no question that an American oil company ... would not be enthusiastic about a plan that would privatize all the assets with Iraq companies and they (US companies) might be left out of the transaction."
In addition, Ms. Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec, "They [oil companies] have to worry about the price of oil."
"I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."
The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight, "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this that and the other. International oil companies without exception are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."
A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none".
Greg Palast's film - the result of a joint investigation by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine - will broadcast on Thursday, 17 March, 2005.
You can watch the program online from Democracy Now!
Read the story in greater detail in the April issue of Harper's magazine.
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." View his writing at www.GregPalast.com
Leni von Eckardt contributed investigative research for this
http://www.gregpalast.com/secret-us-plans-for-iraqs-oil/
-
U.S. Senator Richard Lugar, Republican Party chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has threatened France and Russia, saying that if they don't support Bush's invasion plans they'll get no share in Iraq's oil resources (Oil and Gas International's 'World Industry News', January 27, 2003).
The Bush Administration's most outspoken war-for-oil proponent is Richard Perle, chair of the Defense Policy Board, a Pentagon advisory group. Perle's Rand Corporation report briefing submitted in July, 2002 recommended invading Iraq as a first step in gaining U.S. control over oil throughout the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia (Boston Globe, September 10, 2002).
"Oil giants including ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, and ConocoPhillips are the most likely to lead any development efforts in a post-war Iraq," according to energy analyst Peter Zeihan of Stratfor, an intelligence-consulting group based in Austin, Texas ("Reaping the spoils of war: Ousting Saddam could put U.S. oil giants in 'driver's seat'," CBS.MarketWatch.com, January 31, 2003).
Executives from U.S. oil firms have been conferring with officials from the White House, State Department and Defense Department on lucrative contracts to rebuild and run Iraq's oil industry after the war, according to The Wall Street Journal. "[T]he early spoils would probably go to companies needed to keep Iraq's already run-down oil operations running, especially if facilities were further damaged in a war. Oil-services firms such as Halliburton Co., where Vice President Dick Cheney formerly served as chief executive, and Schlumberger Ltd. are seen as favorites for what could be as much as $1.5 billion in contracts. The major oil and natural-gas producers won't be far behind." ("U.S. Oil Wants to Work in Iraq", January 16, 2003)
Such reports have prompted consumer advocate and 2000 Green presidential candidate Ralph Nader to ask about the extent to which oil companies were involved in the decision to invade Iraq. "The American people also have a right to know what was discussed in the numerous secret meetings Vice President Cheney's national energy task force held with oil and gas executives." ("What Role the Oil Industry Playing in Bush's Drive to War?", by Ralph Nader, CommonDreams.org, February 14, 2003)
The U.S. consumes 26% of the world's oil, but possesses only 2% of the world's oil reserves. The U.S. imports 9.8 million barrels of oil a day, more than half of its 19.5 million barrels a day consumption. Cheney's national energy plan, drafted during the secret meetings with oil executives, wants the U.S. to import 17 million barrels a day, or 2/3 of daily oil consumption, by 2020. The plan makes energy security, including control over the availability of oil to other nations, a priority of U.S. foreign policy.
Outside the U.S., the oil motivation is more openly discussed. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged in a recent speech to British ambassadors that oil is the main motivation for Blair's support for Bush's war, much more so than any threat of weapons of mass destruction.
-
By the way, Bill O'Rielly introduced Greg Palast as "one of the world's foremost energy experts" ;D So if he's good for Fox ;D
-
starting about 50 seconds in: This is before the second plan was discovered by Palast.
-
Let's not forget our pipelines running from the Caspian through Georgia...
-
Let's not forget our pipelines running from the Caspian through Georgia...
I sure didn't.
-
I sure didn't.
But Mr. Hawaii 05 definitely did...
-
Here's one of the best presentations by greg and really clears up some popular misconceptions on the war for oil. Go to 27:30 of the video, where he starts talking about oil.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6802228062297352475&hl=en
-
Uhmm...how did Bush get to be our president again?! ??? :o
-
How do you stand these liberal liars Beach Bum...
You know they just make this shit up!!!
-
Uhmm...how did Bush get to be our president again?! ??? :o
He/they rigged the elections.
-
How do you stand these liberal liars Beach Bum...
You know they just make this shit up!!!
hahaha :)
-
He/they rigged the elections.
eh, you just gave BB a pass to redirect the thread into an 00/04 election debate.
He was saveagely owned on a thread he started, by neocon approved speakers.
Now he'll ignore all the irrefutable evidence and talk about the 2004 election :(
-
eh, you just gave BB a pass to redirect the thread into an 00/04 election debate.
He was saveagely owned on a thread he started, by neocon approved speakers.
Now he'll ignore all the irrefutable evidence and talk about the 2004 election :(
oops!!! Ok, BB is an honorable and righteous dude... I have confidence he'll review the oil material and respond... Don't let me down my man, BB, what say you :D
-
Here's one of the best presentations by greg and really clears up some popular misconceptions on the war for oil. Go to 27:30 of the video, where he starts talking about oil.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6802228062297352475&hl=en
This really has some absolutely priceless shit in it. I hope you all give this one a listen. If there is any doubts, Greg Palast does back his shit up with actual documents, tapes and interviews. As I've said before, this guy has a real tallent for being able to walk right into corporate headquarters and get them to turn over stuff they would never want released to the public. So he does back his shit up... Everything he talks about here is backed and proven true through actual document, video or audio and has appeared in various documentaries and publications through the BBC and other means.
-
This really has some absolutely priceless shit in it. I hope you all give this one a listen. If there is any doubts, Greg Palast does back his shit up with actual documents, tapes and interviews. As I've said before, this guy has a real tallent for being able to walk right into corporate headquarters and get them to turn over stuff they would never want released to the public. So he does back his shit up... Everything he talks about here is backed and proven true through actual document, video or audio and has appeared in various documentaries and publications through the BBC and other means.
I'm going to fwd to that point.
quick question, have you posted this before. I had deja vu when I opened the link
we need better emoticons already.
-
Secret U.S. Plans For Iraq's Oil
By Greg Palast
Reporting for BBC Newsnight (London)
Why was Paul Wolfowitz pushed out of the Pentagon onto the World Bank -- The answer lies in a 323-page document, secret until now, indicating that the allies of Big Oil in the Bush Administration have defeated neo-conservatives and their chief Wolfowitz. BBC Television Newsnight tells the true story of the fall of the neo-cons. An investigation conducted by BBC with Harper's magazine will also reveal that the US State Department made detailed plans for war in Iraq -- and for Iraq's oil -- within weeks of Bush's first inauguration in 2001.
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protestors claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.
In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists."
"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.
Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.
An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.
Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.
Secret sell-off plan
The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by yet another secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan, crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.
The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Fadhil Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel. Mr. Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, flew to the London meeting, he told Newsnight, at the request of the State Department.
Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.
"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, your losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable," said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.
"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatization is coming."
Privatization blocked by industry
Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.
Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatization of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."
The chosen successor to Mr Carroll, a Conoco Oil executive, ordered up a new plan for a state oil company preferred by the industry.
Ari Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields. He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision.
Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."
New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favored by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004, Harper's discovered, under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas. Former US Secretary of State Baker is now an attorney. His law firm, Baker Botts, is representing ExxonMobil and the Saudi Arabian government.
Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of Russia's energy privatization. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.
Jaffe said "There is no question that an American oil company ... would not be enthusiastic about a plan that would privatize all the assets with Iraq companies and they (US companies) might be left out of the transaction."
In addition, Ms. Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan that would undermine Opec, "They [oil companies] have to worry about the price of oil."
"I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for me or my company."
The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight, "Many neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs about markets, about democracy, about this that and the other. International oil companies without exception are very pragmatic commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."
A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none".
Greg Palast's film - the result of a joint investigation by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine - will broadcast on Thursday, 17 March, 2005.
You can watch the program online from Democracy Now!
Read the story in greater detail in the April issue of Harper's magazine.
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." View his writing at www.GregPalast.com
Leni von Eckardt contributed investigative research for this
http://www.gregpalast.com/secret-us-plans-for-iraqs-oil/
So according to this there was a "secret plan" by the Bush Administration to start a war in Iraq to seize Iraq's oil.
-
Why do we have to have a secret plan?
Go in there and take that shit. We can build the festering shithold country back up to better than it ever has been. Hell, there are parts of Texas and California that are in worse shape than Baghdad.
They should be happy it's the US and not Russia coming down on them.
Ungrateful goat-lovers...
-
So according to this there was a "secret plan" by the Bush Administration to start a war in Iraq to seize Iraq's oil.
There are at least $50 trillion dollars worth of oil under Iraq.
Nations have been invading other nations for centuries for their resources.
We're the #1 nation in the world - the only superpower.
We achieved this status by exploiting others, and war.
You're not a dumb guy, Beach Bum. Why would you believe that every other country in the world does this - but we do not?
-
Go in there and take that shit. We can build the festering shithold country back up to better than it ever has been. Hell, there are parts of Texas and California that are in worse shape than Baghdad.
I admire your honesty on taking the oil. Bush himself admitted it 19 months ago.
-
I admire your honesty on taking the oil. Bush himself admitted it 19 months ago.
Somebody will take it, the arabs can't handle it themselves.
Why not us?
-
starting about 50 seconds in: This is before the second plan was discovered by Palast.
Once I got past the guy with the detective hat, the whispering voice, and the sinister music by "Moby," I came away with this: "indications" are Cheney may have had meetings with oil executives months before the war to review maps of Iraqi oil. That was the closest thing to a conspiracy in the clip.
Lots of accusations. Where's the beef?
Also, the government doesn't own Iraqi oil and I have yet to see evidence that the U.S. government owns Iraqi oil.
Same for American oil companies. They don't own Iraqi oil. Any proof to the contrary?
-
Somebody will take it, the arabs can't handle it themselves.
Why not us?
Some say they have the right to SELL it to China, Russia, S. America, Europe and India.
in Euro $.
For more profit.
Bush and Cheney felt it'd be better if it was managed by US firms, sold in dollars, and priced as our oil managers in the firms running it determine. It works great for us in the long run - but does kinda flush traditional morals down the toilet.
-
There are at least $50 trillion dollars worth of oil under Iraq.
Nations have been invading other nations for centuries for their resources.
We're the #1 nation in the world - the only superpower.
We achieved this status by exploiting others, and war.
You're not a dumb guy, Beach Bum. Why would you believe that every other country in the world does this - but we do not?
I'm asking for proof of this secret--and unsuccessful--plan to steal Iraq's oil. It is good CT discussion, but short on facts.
-
I admire your honesty on taking the oil. Bush himself admitted it 19 months ago.
Link? Where is the quote of Bush admitting that we were "taking the oil"?
-
"indications" are Cheney may have had meetings with oil executives months before the war to review maps of Iraqi oil. That was the closest thing to a conspiracy in the clip.
Lots of accusations. Where's the beef?
FOIA documents reveal:
In the Summer of 2003 a partial disclosure of these materials was made by the Commerce Department. This resulted in the release of documents, maps, and charts, dated March 2001, of Iraq's, Saudi Arabia's and United Arab Emirates' oil fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals and development projects.
On April 4, 2001, representatives of 13 environmental groups, including Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth and Anna Aurilio of the U.S. Public Interest Group, met with the Task Force (although not with Vice President Cheney personally).
The Washington Post reported on November 15, 2005 that it had obtained documents detailing how executives from major oil corporations, including Exxon-Mobil Corp., Conoco, Royal Dutch Shell Oil Corp., and the American subsidiary of British Petroleum met with Energy Task Force participants while they were developing national energy policy. Vice President Cheney was reported to have met personally with the Chief Executive Officer of BP (formerly British Petroleum) during the time of the Energy Task Force's activities. In the week prior to this article revealing oil executive involvement, the Chief Executives of Exxon-Mobil and ConocoPhillips told members of the US Senate that they had not participated as part of the Energy Task Force, while the CEO of British Petroleum stated that he did not know.
On July 18, 2007, the Washington Post reported the names of those involved in the Task Force, including at least 40 meetings with interest groups, most of them from energy-producing industries. Among those in the meetings were James J. Rouse, then vice president of Exxon Mobil and a major donor to the Bush inauguration; Kenneth L. Lay, then head of Enron Corp.; Jack N. Gerard, then with the National Mining Association; Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute; and Eli Bebout, an old friend of Cheney's from Wyoming who serves in the state Senate and owns an oil and drilling company.[3]
-
FOIA documents reveal:
In the Summer of 2003 a partial disclosure of these materials was made by the Commerce Department. This resulted in the release of documents, maps, and charts, dated March 2001, of Iraq's, Saudi Arabia's and United Arab Emirates' oil fields, pipelines, refineries, tanker terminals and development projects.
On April 4, 2001, representatives of 13 environmental groups, including Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth and Anna Aurilio of the U.S. Public Interest Group, met with the Task Force (although not with Vice President Cheney personally).
The Washington Post reported on November 15, 2005 that it had obtained documents detailing how executives from major oil corporations, including Exxon-Mobil Corp., Conoco, Royal Dutch Shell Oil Corp., and the American subsidiary of British Petroleum met with Energy Task Force participants while they were developing national energy policy. Vice President Cheney was reported to have met personally with the Chief Executive Officer of BP (formerly British Petroleum) during the time of the Energy Task Force's activities. In the week prior to this article revealing oil executive involvement, the Chief Executives of Exxon-Mobil and ConocoPhillips told members of the US Senate that they had not participated as part of the Energy Task Force, while the CEO of British Petroleum stated that he did not know.
On July 18, 2007, the Washington Post reported the names of those involved in the Task Force, including at least 40 meetings with interest groups, most of them from energy-producing industries. Among those in the meetings were James J. Rouse, then vice president of Exxon Mobil and a major donor to the Bush inauguration; Kenneth L. Lay, then head of Enron Corp.; Jack N. Gerard, then with the National Mining Association; Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute; and Eli Bebout, an old friend of Cheney's from Wyoming who serves in the state Senate and owns an oil and drilling company.[3]
O.K. They had maps of oil fields dated March 2001. So what. This is proof of a plan to start a war to steal oil?
-
O.K. They had maps of oil fields dated March 2001. So what. This is proof of a plan to start a war to steal oil?
I don't get you. What is it about obvious conquest for resources by the USA that you cannot accept?
let's try this... do you believe the USA has ever - from 1800 to present - started a war for resources?
yes or no?
-
I don't get you. What is it about obvious conquest for resources by the USA that you cannot accept?
let's try this... do you believe the USA has ever - from 1800 to present - started a war for resources?
yes or no?
Oh please. I started this thread to find out what people believe is the evidence of two things:
1. That we started the Iraq war to steal Iraq's oil.
2. That we actually did steal Iraq's oil.
Don't start throwing out made-up facts (Bush admitted we went to war for oil) or asking be red herring questions. Give me facts.
So far, we have the following:
1. A "secret meeting."
2. Maps of Iraqi oil dated March 2001.
3. "Indications" that Cheney met with oil execs before the war.
What else?
-
Oh please.
I don't know why it would be so hard for you to admit. It's not a red herring. if you have a fundamental belief that our nation has never, or would never, invade a soverign nation for their resources... no amount of evidence will ever convince you.
I'll ask again - as an answer from you in the negative would mean you aren't open to evidence.
Do you believe the USA has ever - from 1800 to present - started a war for resources?
yes or no?
-
I'm going to fwd to that point.
quick question, have you posted this before. I had deja vu when I opened the link
we need better emoticons already.
yup, I've probably posted it half a dozen times but you know how it goes, lucky if 1 person watches, so when the topic pops up, post again and hope. BB actually promised me way back he would watch it.
-
Why do we have to have a secret plan?
Go in there and take that shit. We can build the festering shithold country back up to better than it ever has been. Hell, there are parts of Texas and California that are in worse shape than Baghdad.
They should be happy it's the US and not Russia coming down on them.
Ungrateful goat-lovers...
you're sure playing for the extreme huh?
-
Once I got past the guy with the detective hat, the whispering voice, and the sinister music by "Moby," I came away with this: "indications" are Cheney may have had meetings with oil executives months before the war to review maps of Iraqi oil. That was the closest thing to a conspiracy in the clip.
Lots of accusations. Where's the beef?
Also, the government doesn't own Iraqi oil and I have yet to see evidence that the U.S. government owns Iraqi oil.
Same for American oil companies. They don't own Iraqi oil. Any proof to the contrary?
What? It's not about the US gov owning Iraqi oil... never was... You just did a 180 from what I showed you.
-
Here's one of the best presentations by greg and really clears up some popular misconceptions on the war for oil. Go to 27:30 of the video, where he starts talking about oil.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6802228062297352475&hl=en
bb, just watch this from 27:30 on. PLEASE :) This is not about government ownership of Iraqi oil.
-
What? It's not about the US gov owning Iraqi oil... never was... You just did a 180 from what I showed you.
What was it about then?
Actually, I'm really just trying to understand how people support the war for oil contention.
-
bb, just watch this from 27:30 on. PLEASE :) This is not about government ownership of Iraqi oil.
I've listened to this before. I did listen (again) to ten minutes from 27 to 37. This isn't news. There were plans on how to deal with Iraqi oil in the event we went to war, removed their leadership, and decimated their infrastructure. This isn't a plan to steal oil, give the U.S. control of oil, or allow the U.S. to profit from oil.
-
Do you believe the USA has ever - from 1800 to present - started a war for resources?
yes or no?
-
::)
-
I've listened to this before. I did listen (again) to ten minutes from 27 to 37. This isn't news. There were plans on how to deal with Iraqi oil in the event we went to war, removed their leadership, and decimated their infrastructure. This isn't a plan to steal oil, give the U.S. control of oil, or allow the U.S. to profit from oil.
YOU'RE NOT LISTENING... IT'S NOT ABOUT US GOV CONTROL OF THE OIL. It's about the control of the limit of oil for Big Oil, not the US Gov, I don't know why you keep saying that... Look, James Baker III's lawfirm representing Big Oil is on record opposing the privatization of Iraqi Oil, they shot down that plan. Greg explains why they shot down that plan if you listen. It's about the control of the flow of oil for profit for Big Oil. I know, it's so easy to just say we have a plan for everything before just incase it happens,,, good god wake the fuck up... They did not get into office and in 2001 immediately draw up plans for Iraqi oil just in case ::) Quick fucking priority don't you think??? duh...
-
::)
It's good you eye rolled at that instead of answering... But now that we're here, please do answer that ;)
-
YOU'RE NOT LISTENING... IT'S NOT ABOUT US GOV CONTROL OF THE OIL. It's about the control of the limit of oil for Big Oil, not the US Gov, I don't know why you keep saying that... Look, James Baker III's lawfirm representing Big Oil is on record opposing the privatization of Iraqi Oil, they shot down that plan. Greg explains why they shot down that plan if you listen. It's about the control of the flow of oil for profit for Big Oil. I know, it's so easy to just say we have a plan for everything before just incase it happens,,, good god wake the fuck up... They did not get into office and in 2001 immediately draw up plans for Iraqi oil just in case ::) Quick fucking priority don't you think??? duh...
People who have a different opinion don't need to wake up. They simply have a different opinion.
In any event, what do you mean by "control of the limit of oil for Big Oil"?
-
It's good you eye rolled at that instead of answering... But now that we're here, please do answer that ;)
No. :)
-
Do you believe the USA has ever - from 1800 to present - started a war for resources?
yes or no?
that's a fracking good question... inquisitive minds want to know :)
-
No. :)
Would you like or dislike being proven wrong :)
-
Would you like or dislike being proven wrong :)
Haven't thought about that. I try and avoid answering dumb questions, particularly if they have nothing to do with the point being discussed.
-
Haven't thought about that. I try and avoid answering dumb questions, particularly if they have nothing to do with the point being discussed.
how does this not have anything to do with the point, of course it does.
-
Haven't thought about that. I try and avoid answering dumb questions, particularly if they have nothing to do with the point being discussed.
Right, even if an answer in the negative would prevent you from accepting any evidence whatsoever.
Weak, BB. Weak. You lack the courage to answer a simple Q which should come damn easy, if you feel we've never done it. And if you do feel we've done it (which is easy to prove historically), you lack the spine to admit it.
It's hard to trust a guy who admits zero flaws. He's dishonest to the core.
-
bb, did you really want an answer to your original question? It looks like you had no intention of receiving any such thing.
-
maybe he didn't like the answer ???
-
maybe he didn't like the answer ???
sounds like he's going thru a moral conflict.
Joe/coach went thru it. He healed by admitting "yes, it was about oil, but for other reasons too. It's okay to control oil because we helped rescue them from saddam too!"
It's like breaking into your house and mopping the floor before stealing his PS3, but it works to ease the moral pain of supporting a war they now admit was for resource procurement, not "freedoms".
-
People who have a different opinion don't need to wake up. They simply have a different opinion.
In any event, what do you mean by "control of the limit of oil for Big Oil"?
if you would listen to the clip I gave you, it explains very clear... As backed up by James Baker's firm, they admit on camera (not on this clip but I have seen it) that limiting production and increasing price is in their best interest and what they represented. The second plan obtained by Palast from CONOCO confirms this and the shootdown of the neocon privatization plan. You know how debeers stock piles diamonds and controls the flow for price/profit... yea, same concept here.
-
I'm curious to know what BB thinks about McCain admitting it's about oil?
-
how does this not have anything to do with the point, of course it does.
No it doesn't.
-
Right, even if an answer in the negative would prevent you from accepting any evidence whatsoever.
Weak, BB. Weak. You lack the courage to answer a simple Q which should come damn easy, if you feel we've never done it. And if you do feel we've done it (which is easy to prove historically), you lack the spine to admit it.
It's hard to trust a guy who admits zero flaws. He's dishonest to the core.
Yawn. ::)
-
bb, did you really want an answer to your original question? It looks like you had no intention of receiving any such thing.
You guys are all over the place. What I've gleaned from the stuff that has been posted so far is this:
1. A "secret meeting."
2. Maps of Iraqi oil dated March 2001.
3. "Indications" that Cheney met with oil execs before the war.
4. Plans on how to deal with Iraq's infrastructure, including oil, after we decimated the place.
What else?
Also, I don't know what you mean by "control of the limit of oil for Big Oil."
-
if you would listen to the clip I gave you, it explains very clear... As backed up by James Baker's firm, they admit on camera (not on this clip but I have seen it) that limiting production and increasing price is in their best interest and what they represented. The second plan obtained by Palast from CONOCO confirms this and the shootdown of the neocon privatization plan. You know how debeers stock piles diamonds and controls the flow for price/profit... yea, same concept here.
So there was a plan to limit production of Iraq's oil to increase the cost of oil to benefit U.S. oil companies, and this prompted Bush to order the invasion of Iraq? How is this possible when Iraq only owns about 15 percent of the world's oil?
-
I'm curious to know what BB thinks about McCain admitting it's about oil?
News to me. Quote/link?
-
News to me. Quote/link?
BOOOOM!!! :)
-
BOOOOM!!! :)
lol. You gotta be kidding me. lol . . .
-
So there was a plan to limit production of Iraq's oil to increase the cost of oil to benefit U.S. oil companies, and this prompted Bush to order the invasion of Iraq? How is this possible when Iraq only owns about 15 percent of the world's oil?
Plan A by the neoconservitives for the privatization of Iraqi oil was developed before the war. That's a fact obtained in black and white. Plan B came about because Plan A didn't sit well with Big Oil, that's a fact as obtained by Greg in black and white. Is oil the only reason we went in? Well that would be stupid to say. clearly there is a strategic interest in having a military presence there. Is Oil a non factor, oh hell no... I think by their own plans obtained by Palast Oil was a critical component. Do you really believe we gave a shit about liberating Iraqis? LOL... How many other people in the world are getting totally wasted by their governments and we don't give a shit. It sure in the hell was not about WMD, otherwise you would not have had, as confirmed by the downing street memos, the fixing of intelligence to hit Iraq for WMD... What the hell does that leave? Oil and strategic position...
-
lol. You gotta be kidding me. lol . . .
LOL, YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING MEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT DID HE JUST SAY?
WHAT DID HE JUST SAY?
WHAT DID HE JUST SAY?
He said straight up, his energy policy would translate to us never having to send our men and women into the middle east again... WHAT OTHER FUCKING TRANSLATION DO YOU HAVE FOR THAT... BY ALL MEANS, PLEASY EXPLAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Plan A by the neoconservitives for the privatization of Iraqi oil was developed before the war. That's a fact obtained in black and white. Plan B came about because Plan A didn't sit well with Big Oil, that's a fact as obtained by Greg in black and white. Is oil the only reason we went in? Well that would be stupid to say. clearly there is a strategic interest in having a military presence there. Is Oil a non factor, oh hell no... I think by their own plans obtained by Palast Oil was a critical component. Do you really believe we gave a shit about liberating Iraqis? LOL... How many other people in the world are getting totally wasted by their governments and we don't give a shit. It sure in the hell was not about WMD, otherwise you would not have had, as confirmed by the downing street memos, the fixing of intelligence to hit Iraq for WMD... What the hell does that leave? Oil and strategic position...
Thanks for the explanation. Discussions about how to deal with Iraq's oil in the event of war does not mean there was a war in whole or in part to possess their oil, manipulate oil prices, etc. Iraq doesn't have enough oil to make it worthwhile. It would not surprise me if there were discussions on what to do if we toppled Iraq that started many years before the war. Our government was calling Saddam a threat and calling for his removal since at least 1998.
And look at the end result. All we have is a big fat bill for the war. Seems like a pretty poor plan.
What is the argument that we are actually profiting from Iraq's oil?
-
Thanks for the explanation. Discussions about how to deal with Iraq's oil in the event of war does not mean there was a war in whole or in part to possess their oil, manipulate oil prices, etc. Iraq doesn't have enough oil to make it worthwhile. It would not surprise me if there were discussions on what to do if we toppled Iraq that started many years before the war. Our government was calling Saddam a threat and calling for his removal since at least 1998.
And look at the end result. All we have is a big fat bill for the war. Seems like a pretty poor plan.
What is the argument that we are actually profiting from Iraq's oil?
I see it's a no win with you... I have nothing against everything being a preplanned contingency. ::) You win ::) Happy ::)
-
LOL, YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING MEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT DID HE JUST SAY?
WHAT DID HE JUST SAY?
WHAT DID HE JUST SAY?
He said straight up, his energy policy would translate to us never having to send our men and women into the middle east again... WHAT OTHER FUCKING TRANSLATION DO YOU HAVE FOR THAT... BY ALL MEANS, PLEASY EXPLAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh I don't know, why doesn't someone just ask him? Good grief. People who argue with video clips (Rush, Olbermann, etc.) crack me up.
-
I see it's a no win with you... I have nothing against everything being a preplanned contingency. ::) You win ::) Happy ::)
Actually this wasn't about winning. Just asking for input. Sorry you got frustrated. You can pick up your bat and ball and go home now. :)
-
Actually this wasn't about winning. Just asking for input. Sorry you got frustrated. You can pick up your bat and ball and go home now. :)
when don't I get frustrated :D No doubt I get passionate about this shit, no permanent offense intended... ;D
-
when don't I get frustrated :D No doubt I get passionate about this shit, no permanent offense intended... ;D
None taken. :)
-
None taken. :)
I will only add that I hope you go ahead and listen to the rest of that clip. It's about another 15 minutes or so, not much.
-
I will only add that I hope you go ahead and listen to the rest of that clip. It's about another 15 minutes or so, not much.
I will try.
-
I will try.
is it fair to say that mean no way in hell :D
-
is it fair to say that mean no way in hell :D
Not at all. I read links and listen to clips all the time (I've done that several times just in this thread), but 20 or 30 mintues at a time is a little hard. If I forget you can remind me. :)
-
Thanks for the explanation. Discussions about how to deal with Iraq's oil in the event of war does not mean there was a war in whole or in part to possess their oil, manipulate oil prices, etc. Iraq doesn't have enough oil to make it worthwhile. It would not surprise me if there were discussions on what to do if we toppled Iraq that started many years before the war. Our government was calling Saddam a threat and calling for his removal since at least 1998.
And look at the end result. All we have is a big fat bill for the war. Seems like a pretty poor plan.
What is the argument that we are actually profiting from Iraq's oil?
You (the people of the US and government) don't profit from the war. Big Oil does - basically they have effectively used the "unlimited" resources of the US government to obtain resources that can then make profit for the private sector (that means not you). Think of it as stealing from infrastructure.
-
Not at all. I read links and listen to clips all the time (I've done that several times just in this thread), but 20 or 30 mintues at a time is a little hard. If I forget you can remind me. :)
I was just busting balls :D
-
This is an easy one. Did Iraq have the same exact PSAs (production sharing agreements) with foreign multinational oil corporations prior to the invasion?
No.
The US 'asked' the Iraqi government to open its oil fields to the 'help' of these corporations...all for a tidy profit...record profits in fact.
It is the corporations that benefit. Any oil benefit inuring to the US is purely coincidental. That's globalization Bushstyle.
-
This is an easy one. Did Iraq have the same exact PSAs (production sharing agreements) with foreign multinational oil corporations prior to the invasion?
No.
The US 'asked' the Iraqi government to open its oil fields to the 'help' of these corporations...all for a tidy profit...record profits in fact.
It is the corporations that benefit. Any oil benefit inuring to the US is purely coincidental. That's globalization Bushstyle.
What's easy? Not sure what you're responding to? Are you saying we went to war to secure PSAs? How do "foreign multinational oil corporations" benefit the U.S. government?
I'm specifically asking first about the evidence that we went to war for oil and secondly evidence that we have profited from Iraq's oil. On the second point, sounds like you're saying the U.S. has not benefitted from Iraq's oil?
Regarding PSAs, what PSAs have U.S. owned companies signed with the Iraqi government? You have a source?
According to this, the only "major" agreement they have is with China:
Iraq and China agree to $3 billion oil service deal
Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:56am EDT
By Emma Graham-Harrison and Jim Bai
BEIJING (Reuters) - Iraq and China have agreed the terms of a $3 billion oil service contract, Iraq's oil minister said on Wednesday, announcing the first major oil contract with a foreign firm since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
Energy-hungry China has beaten international oil majors to take the first opening since the U.S.-led invasion for work on the world's third-largest reserves.
Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani warned that time was running out for big Western oil firms, which have jostled for years for Iraqi contracts, to seal even the short-term deals that were expected to mark their return to the country.
Iraq and China's state-oil firm CNPC have agreed the renegotiated terms of an old deal signed in 1997 to pump oil from the Adhab oilfield, Shahristani told Reuters in an interview. CNPC is Asia's biggest oil and gas company.
"Finally we have reached an agreement," Shahristani said after clinching the deal. "The total investment of the project is expected to be about $3 billion."
Iraq has toughened the terms, changing the contract to a set-fee service deal from the oil production sharing agreement signed under Saddam.
Iraq needs billions of dollars of investment in its energy sector after years of war and sanctions. But with high oil prices and strong competition for access to some of the world's cheapest oil to produce, Iraq has been negotiating from a position of strength.
Under the revised contract, Adhab will produce 110,000 barrels per day (bpd), up from the previous target of 90,000 bpd, Shahristani said.
. . .
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSLR10073920080827
-
What's easy? Not sure what you're responding to?
The answer to War for Oil?
Are you saying we went to war to secure PSAs? How do "foreign multinational oil corporations" benefit the U.S. government?
There were many reasons, I suppose, the US went to war...war time presidents have more power, they get re-elected.... Corps. benefit b/c of their newfound access to Iraqi oil. I've stated already that any benefit to the US is coincidental.
I'm specifically asking first about the evidence that we went to war for oil
Iraq to give Western companies oil rights: report http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/08/iraq-oil.html
and secondly evidence that we have profited from Iraq's oil. On the second point, sounds like you're saying the U.S. has not benefitted from Iraq's oil?
The corporations profit, not we the people.
Regarding PSAs, what PSAs have U.S. owned companies signed with the Iraqi government? You have a source?
China is a player but the US runs the show:
"...not only ExxonMobil, but also ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP and Shell (which have collected invaluable info on two of Iraq's biggest oilfields), TotalFinaElf, Lukoil from Russia and the Chinese majors." http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01.html
According to this, the only "major" agreement they have is with China:
"...Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's cabinet in Baghdad approved the draft of the new Iraqi oil law. The government regards it as "a major national project". The key point of the law is that Iraq's immense oil wealth (115 billion barrels of proven reserves, third in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iran) will be under the iron rule of a fuzzy "Federal Oil and Gas Council" boasting "a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq". That is, nothing less than predominantly US Big Oil executives."
Here's a link that is worth your time: http://www.afsc.net/PDFFiles/JoeMosyjowskiSpeech22308.pdf
It's a speech that explains the underlying law governing Iraq Oil management. It's only 3 pages long.
-
BB just got Decked.
-
I have replied to this before Total had PSA agreements as did Lukos oil before the invasion.
Your analysis is wrong.
Total which is French was profiting before and after the war as were many other oil companies including Lukoil oil.
What I find hilarious is that many of you were predicting that the war was about oil and that we would have lower prices, now that the prices are higher, the war was about oil so that the oil companies can make more profits.
May oil companies that are from countries that weren't involved in Iraq are profiting. But I guess that is exception.
Before
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/10/france.iraq
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11166
After
http://www.france24.com/20080701-total-contract-service-iraq-oil-france
http://en.rian.ru/business/20080607/109477398.html
-
The answer to War for Oil?
There were many reasons, I suppose, the US went to war...war time presidents have more power, they get re-elected.... Corps. benefit b/c of their newfound access to Iraqi oil. I've stated already that any benefit to the US is coincidental.
Iraq to give Western companies oil rights: report http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/08/iraq-oil.html
The corporations profit, not we the people.
China is a player but the US runs the show:
"...not only ExxonMobil, but also ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP and Shell (which have collected invaluable info on two of Iraq's biggest oilfields), TotalFinaElf, Lukoil from Russia and the Chinese majors." http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01.html
"...Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's cabinet in Baghdad approved the draft of the new Iraqi oil law. The government regards it as "a major national project". The key point of the law is that Iraq's immense oil wealth (115 billion barrels of proven reserves, third in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iran) will be under the iron rule of a fuzzy "Federal Oil and Gas Council" boasting "a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq". That is, nothing less than predominantly US Big Oil executives."
Here's a link that is worth your time: http://www.afsc.net/PDFFiles/JoeMosyjowskiSpeech22308.pdf
It's a speech that explains the underlying law governing Iraq Oil management. It's only 3 pages long.
In other words, no evidence we went to war to benefit oil companies (since you agree the war doesn't benefit the U.S. government)? Or did I miss that?
You gave me a link about a possible PSA from a year ago. What happened to that proposal? The link I provided says China actually signed an agreement and that it was the first major agreement of its kind.
How exactly does the link to the story from 2007 establish that the U.S. "runs the show" for an agreement that was signed with China a year later?
So what we're left with is about six years after the war started, there is talk about PSAs with multinational companies. That's it??
-
I have replied to this before Total had PSA agreements as did Lukos oil before the invasion.
Your analysis is wrong.
I see. Sounds like the PSA argument is pretty weak.
-
In other words, no evidence we went to war to benefit oil companies (since you agree the war doesn't benefit the U.S. government)? Or did I miss that?
You gave me a link about a possible PSA from a year ago. What happened to that proposal? The link I provided says China actually signed an agreement and that it was the first major agreement of its kind.
How exactly does the link to the story from 2007 establish that the U.S. "runs the show" for an agreement that was signed with China a year later?
So what we're left with is about six years after the war started, there is talk about PSAs with multinational companies. That's it??
The PSA argument is weak. But that'll flesh out in time. The Chinese 3 billion dollar psa is peanuts. Iraq spills more oil than that. The name of this game is control and the US/big oil control Iraq's oil.
The "Federal Oil and Gas Council" is how exactly the US/Bigoil run the show.
I asked you to look at the speech about Iraqi law (which hasn't changed).
These crooks aren't stupid BB. They get the organizational control in place--conquer the country, establish a puppet government, and install consultants to make sure the US/oil interests control the disposition of Iraq oil. The veneer of Iraqi independence in managing its national asset is establish while the Corleones pull the strings behind the scenes.
Benefit to Big Oil = control.
Iraq Oil and Gas Law (Joe Mosyjowski talk February 23, 2008)
Article 1 (p. 5) “Oil and gas are owned by all the people of Iraq in all the regions and governorates.”
- Beautiful Opening Statement:
* “This law is one of the 18 “benchmarks” being pushed by the Bush Administration & sometimes referred to
as “The Oil Sharing Agreement” – implying it’s about an equitable sharing of the oil/gas revenues among
Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, & other Iraqi sects.”
Article 11 (p. 18) - “Only statement in the entire draft relating to sharing among Iraqi sects…”
“So what is the law really about?...”
Article 4 (p. 7) , Item 17 (Definitions)
“Sounds like the Iraqi people are getting a crash course on corporate personhood. Also sounds like these ‘Iraqi
Persons’ could be 49.99% Foreign Corps. Also sounds like the ‘sharing’ is going to go a little beyond your
average displaced, unemployed Iraqi citizen.”
“Chapter 2 of the agreement is about the management of petroleum resources. It creates a hierarchy to
administer the ‘Exploration and Production Sharing Agreements.’”
“Question: Why would Iraq need ‘Exploration and Production Agreements?’”
- None of the top 6 oil producing countries in the world use Production Sharing Agreements
- Iraqi oil is some of the cheapest in the world to extract (Est. at $1.50 a barrel)
- Only 12% of global oil reserves are covered by Production Sharing Agreements
- Baghdad used to be a center of engineering excellence
“Answer: Because of the years of western imposed sanctions. Because we’ve invaded their country, we’ve
broken their institutions, we’ve not provided a consistent level of security, we’ve created 4 million refugees, the
professionals and skilled trades have been forced to flee. In short, because we want to fill the vacuum which we
have created.”
A- According to the Constitution of Iraq (Articles 106, 111, 112, and 121 (3)) regarding
the ownership of Oil and Gas resources, the distribution of its revenues, and the
monitoring of federal revenue allocation, the Council of Ministers must submit a draft
revenue law to the Council of Representatives regulating these matters in adherence to
the sections of this Article - Sharing is deferred to a separate law.
17- “Iraqi Person”: any citizen with Iraqi nationality or any company or institution
with legal personality established and registered pursuant to Iraqi legislation, with its
headquarters in Iraq and having at least fifty percent (50%) of its share capital held
by national citizens or by Iraqi public or private companies or institutions:
“Chapter 2 Article 5 (p. 9) Creates a “Federal Oil and Gas Council” which in part, “Approves the types of, and
changes to, model exploration and production contracts” (p. 10)”
“Further (p. 10), So, in effect, we have foreign (western) oil corporations defining the terms of their own contracts.”
(p. 11)
“Gee, does this mean we’re going to leave them something? How far has this legislation strayed from its
opening statement…”’Oil and Gas are owned by all the people of Iraq.”
(p. 14, 15) Article 8: Field Development and Oil and Gas Exploration
“Do you think this just might include Exxon-Mobile who made $40 Billion in profit last year?”
Concluding:
“Question- Just what western corporate attorneys wrote this law? Isn’t it obvious why Iraqi’s haven’t quickly
passed this legislation? Do you think the Iraqi’s would have created this same legislation without 150,000+
foreign troops occupying their country? They probably feel the same way the Native Americans felt signing
Fifth: The Federal Oil and Gas Council sets the special instructions for negotiations
pertaining to granting rights or signing Development and Production contracts and
setting qualification criteria for companies.
Sixth: To assist the Federal Oil and Gas Council in reviewing Exploration and
Production contracts and Petroleum Fields’ Development plans, the Council relies on
the assistance of a panel called the “Panel of Independent Advisors” that includes oil
and gas experts, Iraqi’s or foreigners.
Seventh: The Federal Oil and Gas Council is the competent authority to approve the
transfer of rights among holders of Exploration of Production rights and associated
amendment of contracts provided this does not adversely affect the national content
including the percentage of national participation.
D- Utmost effort must be put into ensuring speedy and efficient Development of the
Fields discovered but partially or entirely not yet developed when this law is enacted,
and it is permissible to develop these Fields in collaboration with reputable oil
companies that have the efficient financial, administrative, technical, operational
capabilities according to the contracting terms and the regulations issued by the
Federal Oil and Gas Council.
They probably feel the same way the Native Americans felt signing their peace treaties surrounded by the cavalry. Why don’t we just round up the remaining Iraqi’s and put them on reservations (far from the oil fields of course) and buy them pickup trucks every couple of years?
Folks, this piece of legislation RENAMED THE SPOILS OF WAR LAW is the real “mission accomplished”
for the Bush Administration. President Bush has failed American people by attacking Iraq (we’re hardly more
secure). President Bush has failed the American taxpayer (and their grandchildren) who will have to pay for the
war. President Bush has nearly broken the American military after 5 years of war/occupation. But his cronies
will feel that the mission is accomplished if this law is enacted.”
I happen to agree with the above framing of the Iraq oil law. So does Alan Greenspan... that flaming leftist.
Or do you still believe the US conquered Iraq to save us from its WMDs?
-
The PSA argument is weak. But that'll flesh out in time. The Chinese 3 billion dollar psa is peanuts. Iraq spills more oil than that. The name of this game is control and the US/big oil control Iraq's oil.
The "Federal Oil and Gas Council" is how exactly the US/Bigoil run the show.
I asked you to look at the speech about Iraqi law (which hasn't changed).
These crooks aren't stupid BB. They get the organizational control in place--conquer the country, establish a puppet government, and install consultants to make sure the US/oil interests control the disposition of Iraq oil. The veneer of Iraqi independence in managing its national asset is establish while the Corleones pull the strings behind the scenes.
Benefit to Big Oil = control.
Iraq Oil and Gas Law (Joe Mosyjowski talk February 23, 2008)
Article 1 (p. 5) “Oil and gas are owned by all the people of Iraq in all the regions and governorates.”
- Beautiful Opening Statement:
* “This law is one of the 18 “benchmarks” being pushed by the Bush Administration & sometimes referred to
as “The Oil Sharing Agreement” – implying it’s about an equitable sharing of the oil/gas revenues among
Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, & other Iraqi sects.”
Article 11 (p. 18) - “Only statement in the entire draft relating to sharing among Iraqi sects…”
“So what is the law really about?...”
Article 4 (p. 7) , Item 17 (Definitions)
“Sounds like the Iraqi people are getting a crash course on corporate personhood. Also sounds like these ‘Iraqi
Persons’ could be 49.99% Foreign Corps. Also sounds like the ‘sharing’ is going to go a little beyond your
average displaced, unemployed Iraqi citizen.”
“Chapter 2 of the agreement is about the management of petroleum resources. It creates a hierarchy to
administer the ‘Exploration and Production Sharing Agreements.’”
“Question: Why would Iraq need ‘Exploration and Production Agreements?’”
- None of the top 6 oil producing countries in the world use Production Sharing Agreements
- Iraqi oil is some of the cheapest in the world to extract (Est. at $1.50 a barrel)
- Only 12% of global oil reserves are covered by Production Sharing Agreements
- Baghdad used to be a center of engineering excellence
“Answer: Because of the years of western imposed sanctions. Because we’ve invaded their country, we’ve
broken their institutions, we’ve not provided a consistent level of security, we’ve created 4 million refugees, the
professionals and skilled trades have been forced to flee. In short, because we want to fill the vacuum which we
have created.”
A- According to the Constitution of Iraq (Articles 106, 111, 112, and 121 (3)) regarding
the ownership of Oil and Gas resources, the distribution of its revenues, and the
monitoring of federal revenue allocation, the Council of Ministers must submit a draft
revenue law to the Council of Representatives regulating these matters in adherence to
the sections of this Article - Sharing is deferred to a separate law.
17- “Iraqi Person”: any citizen with Iraqi nationality or any company or institution
with legal personality established and registered pursuant to Iraqi legislation, with its
headquarters in Iraq and having at least fifty percent (50%) of its share capital held
by national citizens or by Iraqi public or private companies or institutions:
“Chapter 2 Article 5 (p. 9) Creates a “Federal Oil and Gas Council” which in part, “Approves the types of, and
changes to, model exploration and production contracts” (p. 10)”
“Further (p. 10), So, in effect, we have foreign (western) oil corporations defining the terms of their own contracts.”
(p. 11)
“Gee, does this mean we’re going to leave them something? How far has this legislation strayed from its
opening statement…”’Oil and Gas are owned by all the people of Iraq.”
(p. 14, 15) Article 8: Field Development and Oil and Gas Exploration
“Do you think this just might include Exxon-Mobile who made $40 Billion in profit last year?”
Concluding:
“Question- Just what western corporate attorneys wrote this law? Isn’t it obvious why Iraqi’s haven’t quickly
passed this legislation? Do you think the Iraqi’s would have created this same legislation without 150,000+
foreign troops occupying their country? They probably feel the same way the Native Americans felt signing
Fifth: The Federal Oil and Gas Council sets the special instructions for negotiations
pertaining to granting rights or signing Development and Production contracts and
setting qualification criteria for companies.
Sixth: To assist the Federal Oil and Gas Council in reviewing Exploration and
Production contracts and Petroleum Fields’ Development plans, the Council relies on
the assistance of a panel called the “Panel of Independent Advisors” that includes oil
and gas experts, Iraqi’s or foreigners.
Seventh: The Federal Oil and Gas Council is the competent authority to approve the
transfer of rights among holders of Exploration of Production rights and associated
amendment of contracts provided this does not adversely affect the national content
including the percentage of national participation.
D- Utmost effort must be put into ensuring speedy and efficient Development of the
Fields discovered but partially or entirely not yet developed when this law is enacted,
and it is permissible to develop these Fields in collaboration with reputable oil
companies that have the efficient financial, administrative, technical, operational
capabilities according to the contracting terms and the regulations issued by the
Federal Oil and Gas Council.
They probably feel the same way the Native Americans felt signing their peace treaties surrounded by the cavalry. Why don’t we just round up the remaining Iraqi’s and put them on reservations (far from the oil fields of course) and buy them pickup trucks every couple of years?
Folks, this piece of legislation RENAMED THE SPOILS OF WAR LAW is the real “mission accomplished”
for the Bush Administration. President Bush has failed American people by attacking Iraq (we’re hardly more
secure). President Bush has failed the American taxpayer (and their grandchildren) who will have to pay for the
war. President Bush has nearly broken the American military after 5 years of war/occupation. But his cronies
will feel that the mission is accomplished if this law is enacted.”
I happen to agree with the above framing of the Iraq oil law. So does Alan Greenspan... that flaming leftist.
Or do you still believe the US conquered Iraq to save us from its WMDs?
O.K. I read it. I'm not exactly blown away. This does not establish that U.S. oil companies control Iraq's oil or that the U.S. "runs the show."
-
O.K. I read it. I'm not exactly blown away. This does not establish that U.S. oil companies control Iraq's oil or that the U.S. "runs the show."
Really.
So nothing gets done with Iraq's oil without the approval/consent/advice of a US/Big Oil advisory board and you state that that "...does not establish that U.S. oil companies control Iraq's oil...".
Question.
If that is not conclusive evidence of who is running Iraq's oil fields, then who is in charge?
-
That whole war was just a disaster. If there's any oil advantage that the US received, the people sure aren't seeing it.
-
Really.
So nothing gets done with Iraq's oil without the approval/consent/advice of a US/Big Oil advisory board and you state that that "...does not establish that U.S. oil companies control Iraq's oil...".
Question.
If that is not conclusive evidence of who is running Iraq's oil fields, then who is in charge?
Iraq. Who cares if they get advice from oil companies? They should get advice from experts.
Who comprises the "Federal Oil & Gas Council"?
-
That whole war was just a disaster. If there's any oil advantage that the US received, the people sure aren't seeing it.
Correct. I don't see it. That's part of the reason I started this thread. I haven't seen any evidence that we have profited from the war, Iraq's oil, etc.
-
Iraq. Who cares if they get advice from oil companies? They should get advice from experts.
Who comprises the "Federal Oil & Gas Council"?
You still haven't read a thing I linked. The Federal Oil & Gas Council has the authority to approve the transfer of rights among holders of Exploration of Production rights and associated amendment of contracts
That means it “Approves the types of, and changes to, model exploration and production contracts”
It's a little more than advice. It's top down control.
The FOGC is comprised of 1/2 Iraqi people/corporations and 1/2 foreign/big oil corporations.
-
You still haven't read a thing I linked. The Federal Oil & Gas Council has the authority to approve the transfer of rights among holders of Exploration of Production rights and associated amendment of contracts
That means it “Approves the types of, and changes to, model exploration and production contracts”
It's a little more than advice. It's top down control.
The FOGC is comprised of 1/2 Iraqi people/corporations and 1/2 foreign/big oil corporations.
It sounds like U.S. oil companies, if any, make up substantially less than half of the FOGC. How can you say the U.S. oil companies are calling the shots under these circumstances? I think that would be, at most, debatable if they (U.S. oil companies) were at least half of the FOGC, but doesn't sound like that's the case.
-
War for FOREIGN oil seems like a good idea until America can ween itself off the foreign stuff.
-
my own personal racist stalker.
Dude, you're posting that a lot.
It's sort of weakening your stalker argument. :-\
-
It sounds like U.S. oil companies, if any, make up substantially less than half of the FOGC. How can you say the U.S. oil companies are calling the shots under these circumstances? I think that would be, at most, debatable if they (U.S. oil companies) were at least half of the FOGC, but doesn't sound like that's the case.
You're right BB. The US has spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq just to help the IRaqi people get a fair shake out their oil interests. That may fly in the rightwing world but in the real world the US does not spend nearly a trillion dollars just to help out an old friend down on its luck.
This is the real world BB. The US does not engage in wholesale charity to tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and expect nothing in return. Nor do these people commit their crimes leaving smoking guns lying around. They are good at what they do.
Here's a great paper on IRaq oil law and the role of the FOGC http://www.iraqoillaw.com/Jiyad.pdf
Iraq’s oil industry (law) was leaked, and it is now being considered by the Iraqi parliament. Several key features of the law would:
*Allow two-thirds of Iraq’s oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations. In contrast, the oil industry has been nationalized in every other major Middle Eastern producer for over 30 years.
*Place governing decisions over oil in a new body known as the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which may include foreign oil companies;
*Open the door for foreign oil companies to lock up decades-long deals now, when the Iraqi government is at its weakest.
*Overall, the law would secure the agenda of ExxonMobil, Chevon, and the other majors, robbing the Iraqi people of their most basic source of wealth. Much is at stake. With 115 billion barrels of proven reserves ($7 trillion worth at $64 per barrel (now much higher than that)) and another 215 billion possible or likely ($14 trillion), there’s nearly a million dollars of oil for every Iraqi citizen. It’s a vast and precious national resource—but only if Iraqis are allowed to control it themselves. http://www.iraqoillaw.com/
Remember the secret energy meetings Cheney and Big Oil had before the invasion?
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.
The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html
These leaked documents are godsends to citizens like myself who believe that running a secretive gov. clashes with our nation's principles.
CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml
Now what do you suppose was discussed at this secret meeting BB? Could it be Iraq's oil?
If Big Oil is just another bidder in the Iraq oil sweepstakes, what's with the Iraq oil field maps in 2001? And why this:
An Iraqi MP preferred to remain anonymous told the newspaper that highly confidential negotiations took place by representatives from American oil companies, offering $5 million to each MP who votes in favor of the Oil and Gas law
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/01/29/american-oil-companies-offered-five-million-dollars-to-each-iraqi-mp-to-pass-the-oil-law/
"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil." – Alan Greenspan
Of course we could just swallow the party line that the invasion really was the US was defending itself from the meteoric threat posed by Iraq and that any assitance in developing the Iraqi oil fields from Halliburtion/KBR was more US hospitality.
I'm past the age of reason though, so I see through that.
-
You're right BB. The US has spent hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq just to help the IRaqi people get a fair shake out their oil interests. That may fly in the rightwing world but in the real world the US does not spend nearly a trillion dollars just to help out an old friend down on its luck.
This is the real world BB. The US does not engage in wholesale charity to tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and expect nothing in return. Nor do these people commit their crimes leaving smoking guns lying around. They are good at what they do.
Here's a great paper on IRaq oil law and the role of the FOGC http://www.iraqoillaw.com/Jiyad.pdf
Iraq’s oil industry (law) was leaked, and it is now being considered by the Iraqi parliament. Several key features of the law would:
*Allow two-thirds of Iraq’s oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations. In contrast, the oil industry has been nationalized in every other major Middle Eastern producer for over 30 years.
*Place governing decisions over oil in a new body known as the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which may include foreign oil companies;
*Open the door for foreign oil companies to lock up decades-long deals now, when the Iraqi government is at its weakest.
*Overall, the law would secure the agenda of ExxonMobil, Chevon, and the other majors, robbing the Iraqi people of their most basic source of wealth. Much is at stake. With 115 billion barrels of proven reserves ($7 trillion worth at $64 per barrel (now much higher than that)) and another 215 billion possible or likely ($14 trillion), there’s nearly a million dollars of oil for every Iraqi citizen. It’s a vast and precious national resource—but only if Iraqis are allowed to control it themselves. http://www.iraqoillaw.com/
Remember the secret energy meetings Cheney and Big Oil had before the invasion?
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.
The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html
These leaked documents are godsends to citizens like myself who believe that running a secretive gov. clashes with our nation's principles.
CHENEY ENERGY TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS FEATURE MAP OF IRAQI OILFIELDS
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml
Now what do you suppose was discussed at this secret meeting BB? Could it be Iraq's oil?
If Big Oil is just another bidder in the Iraq oil sweepstakes, what's with the Iraq oil field maps in 2001? And why this:
An Iraqi MP preferred to remain anonymous told the newspaper that highly confidential negotiations took place by representatives from American oil companies, offering $5 million to each MP who votes in favor of the Oil and Gas law
http://www.roadstoiraq.com/2008/01/29/american-oil-companies-offered-five-million-dollars-to-each-iraqi-mp-to-pass-the-oil-law/
"I'm saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq war is largely about oil." – Alan Greenspan
Of course we could just swallow the party line that the invasion really was the US was defending itself from the meteoric threat posed by Iraq and that any assitance in developing the Iraqi oil fields from Halliburtion/KBR was more US hospitality.
I'm past the age of reason though, so I see through that.
At the end of the day, you have opinion that this was a "war for oil," but you can't support that opinion with any credible facts. I'm not criticizing your opinion because everyone is entitled to one, but there is no proof that I've seen from you or anyone else, that the war started for PSAs, to establish the FOGC, that we have gained one dime from the war, etc., etc.
-
Hey, there's a say that goes something like "soldiers, like Christians, ask no questions". It just amazes me when someone, be a simpleton like myself or an Admin or God himself, opens a thread asking for proof that our actions aren't unselfish acts of help to the rest of the human race. Like there's EVER going to be a video showing Cheney meeting with the rest of the Big Oil gang and actually saying that "we are going to invade Iraq". I mean, let's be realistic, that will never happen.
I mean, the fact that the majority of oil experts agree that the second invasion was staged to take over Iraq's oil should be a hint. The fact that one of the first things our military did when taking over the whole country was to secure all rigs and shot off the spigots should be a hint. The fact that we made the most lame-ass case in front of the UN (remember the drawings? We invaded a country based on those drawins) to invade a sovereign country should be a hint. The fact that NO ONE aside from an island in the middle of the Pacific with a GDP of $50.00, and our lap dogs the Brits, helped us out with the invasion should be a hint. The fact that all of the rhetoric coming from the Bush camp after the invasion all of a sudden became sort of like "fuck Afghanistan, focus on Iraq" should be a hint. The fact that ALL major American oil companies have made record profits in the past few years should be a hint. ALL the places we've invaded or helped "pacify" in the past few years... the native population ended up rejecting us. Name it: Haiti, Somalia, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Viet Nam, etc. They hate us in those places now. Shouldn't WE ask ourselves why? Or should we bomb them senseless because they're brown or poor or we do not like their religion to submission so that our kids and grankids can live in a "better" world"?
-
At the end of the day, you have opinion that this was a "war for oil," but you can't support that opinion with any credible facts. I'm not criticizing your opinion because everyone is entitled to one, but there is no proof that I've seen from you or anyone else, that the war started for PSAs, to establish the FOGC, that we have gained one dime from the war, etc., etc.
So your whole contention is, we borrowed and spent hundreds of billions of dollars and went into more debt just to free the Iraqi's from Saddam and spread democracy and only that?
-
So your whole contention is, we borrowed and spent hundreds of billions of dollars and went into more debt just to free the Iraqi's from Saddam and spread democracy and only that?
No. I'm asking questions. What I hear most of the time is something like "of course we went to war for oil." With the exception of Hugo and Decker, that's essentially what I've read in this thread. They at least have some basis for their opinions, although I don't think what they have provided establishes that this was a "war for oil." Much of it involves six degrees of separation (or more).
I don't think we need to see a smoking gun, but there isn't even a plausible theory that (1) we went to war to seize or profit from Iraq's oil and (2) we are actually profiting from Iraq's oil. If you have a theory, I'd like to hear it, along with the evidence supporting your theory (and not some hour long video clip).
-
At the end of the day, you have opinion that this was a "war for oil," but you can't support that opinion with any credible facts. I'm not criticizing your opinion because everyone is entitled to one, but there is no proof that I've seen from you or anyone else, that the war started for PSAs, to establish the FOGC, that we have gained one dime from the war, etc., etc.
I have built a chain of circumstantial evidence--the unprovoked attack of Iraq based on lies re wmds, the continued occupation of Iraq when no wmds were found, the express provision in Iraqi Law granting final authority to foreign oil companies re the distribution/management of Iraqi oil, the bribes offered by Big Oil to the Iraqi gov. to support the new oil law, the secret pre-war energy meetings btn Cheney & Big Oil where maps of Iraq's oil fields were freely distributed--this all shows that the US invaded Iraq for some reason other than wmds b/c that was utter bullshit on its face (Iraq a threat to the US? Puhlease), If we went into Iraq for WMD disarmament and found no WMDs, why is the US still occupying the country costing US taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollares? Why didn't we just leave? If the oil is not important, why were the oil fields the only thing protected right after the invasion while the rest of the country was plundered to hell? Why were the Iraq oil fields discussed by Cheney & Big Oil in 2001? The Iraqi invasion happened on March of 2003? Why did Big Oil try to bribe Iraqi officials to support the oil law? Why would Iraq want foreign oil companies having final say on the management of Iraq's oil fields?
Most murder suspects are convicted on this type of circumstantial evidence.
Can you see why someone might conclude that this entire Iraq disaster was based on the US's need to control Iraqi oil?
We have prewar collusion btn big oil and the nation's executive branch, we have an illegal invasion predicated on disarmament of a disarmed country, we have an ongoing occupation of Iraq even though it's been disarmed, we have big oil trying to corrupt the Iraqi legal process for its own benefit.
Of course we could wait for Bush/Cheney to make a national address stating they started the war for oil and they could illustrate this with charts and models but that is not how crooks work.
-
I have built a chain of circumstantial evidence--the unprovoked attack of Iraq based on lies re wmds, the continued occupation of Iraq when no wmds were found, the express provision in Iraqi Law granting final authority to foreign oil companies re the distribution/management of Iraqi oil, the bribes offered by Big Oil to the Iraqi gov. to support the new oil law, the secret pre-war energy meetings btn Cheney & Big Oil where maps of Iraq's oil fields were freely distributed--this all shows that the US invaded Iraq for some reason other than wmds b/c that was utter bullshit on its face (Iraq a threat to the US? Puhlease), If we went into Iraq for WMD disarmament and found no WMDs, why is the US still occupying the country costing US taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollares? Why didn't we just leave? If the oil is not important, why were the oil fields the only thing protected right after the invasion while the rest of the country was plundered to hell? Why were the Iraq oil fields discussed by Cheney & Big Oil in 2001? The Iraqi invasion happened on March of 2003? Why did Big Oil try to bribe Iraqi officials to support the oil law? Why would Iraq want foreign oil companies having final say on the management of Iraq's oil fields?
Most murder suspects are convicted on this type of circumstantial evidence.
Can you see why someone might conclude that this entire Iraq disaster was based on the US's need to control Iraqi oil?
We have prewar collusion btn big oil and the nation's executive branch, we have an illegal invasion predicated on disarmament of a disarmed country, we have an ongoing occupation of Iraq even though it's been disarmed, we have big oil trying to corrupt the Iraqi legal process for its own benefit.
Of course we could wait for Bush/Cheney to make a national address stating they started the war for oil and they could illustrate this with charts and models but that is not how crooks work.
I doubt murder suspects are convicted on puzzles like this that are missing so many pieces. You asked about 20 questions, most of them rhetorical, but regarding the question of why we didn't just leave, I think the answer is obvious: we decimated the country and removed its leadership. We couldn't just "leave." The fact that Iraq has a new government, we helped rebuild their country, we have not been compensated, we are in discussions to leave and will take no profits with us, really shows the answer to my second question (how did we profit) is: we did not profit. Unless you consider discussions about possible PSAs and the fact some U.S. oil companies might serve on an advisory panel with no decision making authority as profit.
-
I doubt murder suspects are convicted on puzzles like this that are missing so many pieces. You asked about 20 questions, most of them rhetorical, but regarding the question of why we didn't just leave, I think the answer is obvious: we decimated the country and removed its leadership. We couldn't just "leave." The fact that Iraq has a new government, we helped rebuild their country, we have not been compensated, we are in discussions to leave and will take no profits with us, really shows the answer to my second question (how did we profit) is: we did not profit. Unless you consider discussions about possible PSAs and the fact some U.S. oil companies might serve on an advisory panel with no decision making authority as profit.
When you say "we", who are you talking about?
-
you guys still fighting bb on this? You should know by now this is not a person who looks at the fact and says ok, he looks at them and says you don't have the facts. It's a dead end ;D
-
The Lord of War...
-
I doubt murder suspects are convicted on puzzles like this that are missing so many pieces. You asked about 20 questions, most of them rhetorical, but regarding the question of why we didn't just leave, I think the answer is obvious: we decimated the country and removed its leadership. We couldn't just "leave." The fact that Iraq has a new government, we helped rebuild their country, we have not been compensated, we are in discussions to leave and will take no profits with us, really shows the answer to my second question (how did we profit) is: we did not profit. Unless you consider discussions about possible PSAs and the fact some U.S. oil companies might serve on an advisory panel with no decision making authority as profit.
The vast majority of murder convictions in this country are based on circumstantial evidence just like I showed you. Not every crime occurs with a smoking gun in hand in front of a cop. That's not how our world works.
Why can't the US just leave? Where is the legal obligation that we have to stay? Where do you get the authority?
So the US is one giant charity doling out hundreds of billions of dollars in the greatest social experiment in recent history just b/c we are so gosh darned nice?
You can do a little better than that Beach Bum.
It is not the US that profits under the Iraq law. It is the corporations that collect fees and direct Iraqi contracts...it also helps to have 150,000 armed soldiers illegally occupying the country to get the Iraqis to see things our way.
You must have missed the part of the law that vests decision making in the foreign oil companies.
-
Tell me Beach Bum, would Iraq have to split its authority with foreign entities and open its oil fields to exploitation if the US had not invaded the country?
Nope. The oil was nationalized. The US changed that. Right?
-
When you say "we", who are you talking about?
U.S.
-
The vast majority of murder convictions in this country are based on circumstantial evidence just like I showed you. Not every crime occurs with a smoking gun in hand in front of a cop. That's not how our world works.
Why can't the US just leave? Where is the legal obligation that we have to stay? Where do you get the authority?
So the US is one giant charity doling out hundreds of billions of dollars in the greatest social experiment in recent history just b/c we are so gosh darned nice?
You can do a little better than that Beach Bum.
It is not the US that profits under the Iraq law. It is the corporations that collect fees and direct Iraqi contracts...it also helps to have 150,000 armed soldiers illegally occupying the country to get the Iraqis to see things our way.
You must have missed the part of the law that vests decision making in the foreign oil companies.
Murder convictions are not based on the kind of piecemeal innuendo discussed in this thread.
There was no "legal" obligation to stay. There was a moral obligation to stay. I get that from my common sense. We cannot wipe out a country and then leave, with hostile neighbors on the border, civil war, and probably genocide to follow.
I didn't call the U.S. a giant charity. You did. I'm saying your contention that we went to war so a handful of U.S. oil companies could obtain PSAs or be part of some advisory panel doesn't do much to support your opinion.
Can you identify the "corporations that collect fees and direct Iraqi contracts"?
I missed the part of the law that supports your opinion that the U.S. "runs the show."
-
Why is anyone arguing about this anymore? It is well known that most things we do, be it Georgia or Iraq have something to do oil.
-
Murder convictions are not based on the kind of piecemeal innuendo discussed in this thread.
There was no "legal" obligation to stay. There was a moral obligation to stay. I get that from my common sense. We cannot wipe out a country and then leave, with hostile neighbors on the border, civil war, and probably genocide to follow.
I didn't call the U.S. a giant charity. You did. I'm saying your contention that we went to war so a handful of U.S. oil companies could obtain PSAs or be part of some advisory panel doesn't do much to support your opinion.
Can you identify the "corporations that collect fees and direct Iraqi contracts"?
I missed the part of the law that supports your opinion that the U.S. "runs the show."
Murder convictions do happen with exactly this sort of circumstantial evidence. Unless you can prove otherwise, which you can't, this issue is over.
So now The US is following Beach Bum's moral imperative...why it's common sense even. The US kills btn 80,000 and 650,000 Iraqis and displaces another 4 million and you suddenly have moral pangs about these people's welfare. I'm sorry, that's a tad bit hypocritical.
-
Murder convictions do happen with exactly this sort of circumstantial evidence. Unless you can prove otherwise, which you can't, this issue is over.
So now The US is following Beach Bum's moral imperative...why it's common sense even. The US kills btn 80,000 and 650,000 Iraqis and displaces another 4 million and you suddenly have moral pangs about these people's welfare. I'm sorry, that's a tad bit hypocritical.
lol . . . You state a purported fact, with zero support, and tell me to disprove it? Uh . . . no.
Yes, common sense.
Can you identify the "corporations that collect fees and direct Iraqi contracts"?
-
U.S.
Who in the US is what I meant. The citizens, a corporation, etc...
-
lol . . . You state a purported fact, with zero support, and tell me to disprove it? Uh . . . no.
Yes, common sense.
Can you identify the "corporations that collect fees and direct Iraqi contracts"?
I apologize if my tone was offbase. I was hungry at the time and my wife was hurrying me to go pick up our new tv. sorry.
First here's the contractual authority given to foreign big oil firms:
B- The ministry, and after coordinating with regions and producing provinces, and in adherence to ARTICLE 9 of this law, is to propose to the Federal oil and gas Council the best methods to develop the discovered but yet not developed fields.
C- The ministry prepares model exploration and production contracts to be approved by the Federal Oil and Gas Council and to be appended to this law. These model contracts must guarantee the best levels of coordination between the oil ministry, INOC, and the regions each according to their specific responsibility in relation to both this law and the international oil companies.
D- The utmost efforts must be put into insuring speedy and efficient development of the fields discovered but partially or entirely not yet developed when this law is enacted, and it is permissible to develop these fields in collaboration with reputable oil companies that have the efficient financial, administrative, technical, operational capabilities according to the contracting terms and the regulations issued by the Federal Oil and Gas Council.
E- The Federal oil and gas Council, the oil ministry, INOC, and the regional entities have to carry out an exploratory program in Iraq to asses the oil and gas assists, compensate production, and add new reserves.
F- The ministry must provide the federal oil and gas council with a comprehensive proposal for oil and gas exploration throughout the Republic of Iraq in coordination with the regions and the producing provinces, sorting out the areas according to their oil and gas potentials, implemented within a short time table in order to guarantee increasing reserves and continuing and developing production
A- The rights for conducting Petroleum Operations shall be granted on the basis of an Exploration and Production contract. The contract shall be entered between the Ministry (or the regional entity) and an Iraqi or Foreign Person, natural or legal, which has demonstrated to the Ministry the technical competence and financial capability that are adequate for the efficient conduct of Petroleum Operations according to what the Federal oil and gas Council and mentioned in ARTICLE 5/C/Fifth, and in accordance to the mechanisms of negotiations and contracting mentioned in ARTICLE 10 of this law. shall not be granted to Foreign Persons, singular or plural whose countries of Origin do not allow Iraqi entities to seekSecond: Participate in the licensing process regarding activities within its respective province related to exploration and production of discovered but undeveloped fields mentioned in appendix number 3 according to mechanisms motioned in ARTICLE 9 and based on contracting types prepared by the Federal Oil and Gas Council and in accordance to regulations issued by Federal Oil and Gas Council with qualified international oil companies adherent to the bases put by the Federal Oil and Gas Council. reciprocal opportunities. The contracts shall be approved by the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Iraq.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=JAR20070220&articleId=4868
Could you explain to me why any foreign persons (Panel of independent experts) are required under Iraqi law to manage Iraqi oil?
The oil has been managed by Iraqi people forever. Why are foreigners brought in?
C. Federal Oil and Gas Council
First: To assist the Council of Ministers in creating Petroleum policies and related plans, arranged by the ministry in coordination with the producing provinces and regions, and to put important legislations for exploration and production based on
ARTICLE 9 of this law the ministers council creates an entity to be named "the Federal Oil and Gas Council". The Prime Minister or his/her representative shall be the president of this council, and the council should include:
1- Federal Government’s Ministers from the ministries of oil, treasury, planning, and cooperative development.
2- The director of the Iraqi central bank
3- A regional government minister representing each region.
4- A representative from each producing province not included in a region
5- Executive managers of from important related petroleum companies including the national Iraqi oil company and the oil marketing company
6- Three or less experts specialized in petroleum, finance, and economy to be hired for a period not exceeding 5 years based on a resolution from the council of ministers.
Second: the Federal Oil and Gas Council holds the responsibility of putting federal petroleum policies, exploration plans, fields’ development and main pipelines plans inside Iraq, and this council has the authority to approve any major changes in such plans and policies.
Third: the Federal Oil and Gas Council reviews and changes the exploration and production contracts that give the rights of petroleum operations according to ARTICLE 9 of this law inside Iraq.
Fourth: the Federal Oil and Gas Council approves the types of exploration and production contracts, and chooses the appropriate contract type for the field nature or exploration area or based on offers.
Fifth: the Federal Oil and Gas Council decides the special instructions for negotiations pertaining to granting rights or signing development and production contracts, and setting qualification criteria for companies.
Sixth: To assist the Federal Oil and Gas Council in reviewing exploration and production contracts and petroleum fields’ development plans, the council rely on the assistant of a bureau called the "independent consultants’ bureau" that includes crude oil and natural gas experts, both Iraqis foreigners, this council decides their number, and they should be qualified and have a good reputation and long practical experience in exploration and production operation and in petroleum contracts, and they should be chosen by consensus of the council and contracted for a renewable one year contract. The independent consultants’ bureau gives its recommendations and advice to the Federal Oil and Gas Council in issues related to rights contracts, fields’ development plans, and any other related issues requested by the Federal Oil and Gas Council.
Seventh: the Federal Oil and Gas Council is the competent authority to approve the transfer of rights among holders of Exploration and Production right and associated amendment of contracts provided this does not adversely affect the national content including the percentage of national participation.
Eighth: the Federal Oil and Gas Council is responsible for ensuring that Petroleum resources are discovered, developed, and produced in an optimal manner and in the best interest of the people in accordance with legislation, regulations and contractual conditions as well as recognised international standards.
Ninth: The Federal Oil and Gas Council have the right to create any entities important for implementing its duties, and to create its bylaws.
Tenth: Members of the Federal Oil and Gas Council can suggest policies and law drafts to the Federal Oil and Gas Council.
Beach Bum who do you think is an adviser to the FOGC when the law requires that an Iraqi or Foreign Person, natural or legal, which has demonstrated to the Ministry the technical competence and financial capability that are adequate for the efficient conduct of Petroleum Operations according to what the Federal oil and gas Council and mentioned in ARTICLE 5/C/Fifth, and in accordance to the mechanisms of negotiations and contracting mentioned in ARTICLE 10 of this law.
Why where on earth would you find a foreign (non-iraqi) person with demonstrated technical competence and financial capability to conduct Petroleum Operations in Iraq?
Maybe Big Oil.
And finally there are 2 kinds of evidence: direct and circumstantial. Unless there are witnesses to the killing, the evidence used against the accused is circumstantial. Anybody in the legal business knows the rarity of eyewitness murders going to trial b/c of the direct evidence of murder. It's the murders that aren't done in broad daylight for all to see that go to trial and rely on circumstantial evidence for proof. That's the vast majority of murder cases.
-
Bump, given the withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.
-
Bump, given the withdrawal of all troops from Iraq.
we're removing the US troops, beach bum. leaving 150 men, I think?
but the military contractors? lolzercopter...
-
I read through the thread again. I created this thread three years ago. Pretty clear the people who thought we went to war in Iraq to control and/or profit from their oil were wrong. And not just talking about those who posted in the thread, but the many people who claimed this was a war for oil.
-
I disagree, BB. Senator mccain, who knows more about the way of the world than you or I, made it VERY clear that the Iraq war was about oil:
"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will -- that will then prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East," McCain said.
Was Senator Mccain wrong, beach Bum? And if so, please tell us what insight you have into the matter that Mccain does not.
-
I disagree, BB. Senator mccain, who knows more about the way of the world than you or I, made it VERY clear that the Iraq war was about oil:
"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will -- that will then prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East," McCain said.
Was Senator Mccain wrong, beach Bum? And if so, please tell us what insight you have into the matter that Mccain does not.
Who is "us"? ::) What an asinine interpretation of his comments. 9/11 Troofer approved. lol Go back and read your comments in this thread. You haven't learned a darn thing. lol
-
Who is "us"? ::) What an asinine interpretation of his comments. 9/11 Troofer approved. lol Go back and read your comments in this thread. You haven't learned a darn thing. lol
Brutal 'attack the messenger'.
You didn't answer my Q. Was Mccain wrong? This was 2008... he was the GOP nominee running for president, and he outright admitted why we were in iraq - and he vowed it would happen again on his watch, but he will "eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East".
You can interpret that any way you want, but I think it's pretty clear to most of us what mccain was saying.
No disrespect - it just feels like you want to be right about the "it's not about oil" position that you've held for years. Unfortunately, mccain said the opposite. Personally, based upon his experience and wisdom - I trust his opinion more than yours.
You can return to using phrases like "911 Troofer" now if deflecting the topic makes you feel better, okay?
-
Brutal 'attack the messenger'.
You didn't answer my Q. Was Mccain wrong? This was 2008... he was the GOP nominee running for president, and he outright admitted why we were in iraq - and he vowed it would happen again on his watch, but he will "eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East".
You can interpret that any way you want, but I think it's pretty clear to most of us what mccain was saying.
No disrespect - it just feels like you want to be right about the "it's not about oil" position that you've held for years. Unfortunately, mccain said the opposite. Personally, based upon his experience and wisdom - I trust his opinion more than yours.
You can return to using phrases like "911 Troofer" now if deflecting the topic makes you feel better, okay?
No, simpleton. ::) I attacked your asinine interpretation of McCain's comments. That's attacking the message, not the messenger.
McCain did not admit that we went to war to control or profit from Iraq's oil. The facts are we don't control Iraq's oil, and we did not, and do not, profit from Iraq's oil. This is the kind of twisted logic that results in people believing unnamed conspirators in the government and military cooperated with foreign terrorists to shoot a missile into the Pentagon, and make a commercial plane and all of its passengers disappear. lol
So, to recap, calling you a simpleton was attacking the messenger. Calling your interpretation of McCain's comments stupid was attacking the message. HTH. :)
-
No, simpleton. ::) I attacked your asinine interpretation of McCain's comments. That's attacking the message, not the messenger.
McCain did not admit that we went to war to control or profit from Iraq's oil. The facts are we don't control Iraq's oil, and we did not, and do not, profit from Iraq's oil. This is the kind of twisted logic that results in people believing unnamed conspirators in the government and military cooperated with foreign terrorists to shoot a missile into the Pentagon, and make a commercial plane and all of its passengers disappear. lol
So, to recap, calling you a simpleton was attacking the messenger. Calling your interpretation of McCain's comments stupid was attacking the message. HTH. :)
Well, I delivered my analysis of Mccain's words.
Your response was to say we failed at this goal.
It doesn't change the FACT that the war was for oil - it just looks like it was a mission fail, in that case. Mccain states the reason for war very clearly.
The fact you're repeatedly calling me names tells me, and others reading, that you're pretty upset about this and it's already at an emotional level for you. I don't feel that way (anymore) as I used to. It is what it is. Mccain, Obama, Romney, Bush... they'll all keep the policy of involvement in the middle east for oil.
You can just believe we're involved in so many mid east nations - and that it has nothing to do with oil. Maybe me and mccain and most people are wrong. have a good day buddy.
-
Well, I delivered my analysis of Mccain's words.
Your response was to say we failed at this goal.
It doesn't change the FACT that the war was for oil - it just looks like it was a mission fail, in that case. Mccain states the reason for war very clearly.
The fact you're repeatedly calling me names tells me, and others reading, that you're pretty upset about this and it's already at an emotional level for you. I don't feel that way (anymore) as I used to. It is what it is. Mccain, Obama, Romney, Bush... they'll all keep the policy of involvement in the middle east for oil.
You can just believe we're involved in so many mid east nations - and that it has nothing to do with oil. Maybe me and mccain and most people are wrong. have a good day buddy.
lol. That's really funny. :)
-
"War for oil" fail bump. :)
-
George Bush circa 2003
"...The Iraqi people will pay for their own freedom via their oil...."
ROFL!!!... hahaha..
no... US didnt pay with their tax dollars
check the oil price in 2003... what is it now a barrel?
-
George Bush circa 2003
"...The Iraqi people will pay for their own freedom via their oil...."
ROFL!!!... hahaha..
no... US didnt pay with their tax dollars
check the oil price in 2003... what is it now a barrel?
Huge mistake on our part. We should have made them pay for the war.
-
"War for oil" fail . . . bump . . . in light of Coach's thread.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=540864.0