Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on March 24, 2007, 05:15:22 PM
-
Can anyone show me where the USA is buying oil from Iraq at below market value?
-
ribo can. i wish i had saved the docs he posted.
-
ribo can. i wish i had saved the docs he posted.
he says he can't. I pm'ed him. he said he didn't know anything.
-
he says he can't. I pm'ed him. he said he didn't know anything.
GASP!!!! what? Hmmmmmm 240?
-
There goes another "we're stealing their oil" argument. . . . .
-
Well, i kept reading about how we were buying it under market value, yet no one can seem to produce anything to prove it.
-
Well, i kept reading about how we were buying it under market value, yet no one can seem to produce anything to prove it.
You're not surprised are you? You mean people make unqualified factual statements on this board that have no factual basis? :)
-
You're not surprised are you? You mean people make unqualified factual statements on this board that have no factual basis? :)
:o :o I'm shocked!
I would think something like that would be something you'd post the link to every time you talked about it.
-
There goes another "we're stealing their oil" argument. . . . .
This is so suprising to me!!! LOL I mean how would 240 blast me for 2 days about how I don't know about oil or why we are in Iraq....all he talked about was how much I lacked credibility..and now he has been caught in 2 huge lies in the last few days that he was passionately arguing!!! Hmmmm, who is credible?
-
This is so suprising to me!!! LOL I mean how would 240 blast me for 2 days about how I don't know about oil or why we are in Iraq....all he talked about was how much I lacked credibility..and now he has been caught in 2 huge lies in the last few days that he was passionately arguing!!! Hmmmm, who is credible?
Well, i was going to grind the crap out of that one if it was credible, but let's wait and see. Perhaps Rib or 240 will come up with something! From the start 240 said he read it from a RIB post.
-
This is so suprising to me!!! LOL I mean how would 240 blast me for 2 days about how I don't know about oil or why we are in Iraq....all he talked about was how much I lacked credibility..and now he has been caught in 2 huge lies in the last few days that he was passionately arguing!!! Hmmmm, who is credible?
Will he step up and apologize? :)
-
Well, i was going to grind the crap out of that one if it was credible, but let's wait and see. Perhaps Rib or 240 will come up with something! From the start 240 said he read it from a RIB post.
But Ribo already told you he doesn't know anything.
-
Will he step up and apologize? :)
I could care less about an apology. I just want to see him admit he was wrong. Just like in the 9/11 debate this morning on whether there were fighter jets at Andrews....he is trying to prove that one currently.
-
I could care less about an apology. I just want to see him admit he was wrong. Just like in the 9/11 debate this morning on whether there were fighter jets at Andrews....he is trying to prove that one currently.
Don't hold your breath. I had a discussion with him once about whether the state of Virginia's apology for slavery would now allow the descendents of slaves can file civil lawsuits. I tried to tell him that, among other things, the statute of limitations would prevent those lawsuits (along with the fact slavery was actually legal), and he did nothing but do the juvenile name-calling thing and then ran away.
But maybe he'll prove me wrong here. :)
-
I could care less about an apology. I just want to see him admit he was wrong. Just like in the 9/11 debate this morning on whether there were fighter jets at Andrews....he is trying to prove that one currently.
Finally someone on the board who has some technical knowledge in Defense posture and protocol on that day regarding the 14 planes on alert we had defending the eastern seaboard with training and procedures for attacks coming from the Atlantic not inside the US.
At least you'll be able to explain it to him in real time.
-
Finally someone on the board who has some technical knowledge in Defense posture and protocol on that day regarding the 14 planes on alert we had defending the eastern seaboard with training and procedures for attacks coming from the Atlantic not inside the US.
At least you'll be able to explain it to him in real time.
I guess you didn't see me trying in the "Rosie" thread...he doesn't want to hear any of it
-
I guess you didn't see me trying in the "Rosie" thread...he doesn't want to hear any of it
Oh You've continued it?, ok i'll check it out
-
There goes another "we're stealing their oil" argument. . . . .
The US may or may not have invaded Iraq for the oil, but we sure as hell aren't leaving without it.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/08/iraq-oil.html
The production sharing agreements give foreign oil companies an interest in Iraq's own resources. And the best argument in support of this is that, since Iraqi oil extraction capacity has been decimated due to war, the PSAs are the best way to help them out.
Talk about nonsense: The US devastates Iraq's infrastructure (workforce) for drilling and then the oil companies negotiate PSAs w/ the Iraqi Ministry of Oil that favors the oil companies. Wow.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2004/0128oilprofit.htm
-
GASP!!!! what? Hmmmmmm 240?
This is what we went to war for... and now we have it.
http://www.al-ghad.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/iraqi_oil_law.pdf
It's a 29-page legal document - so it won't be recreational reading. But here's a blogger's summary...
This law legalizes PSAs (production sharing agreements) in Iraq. Iraq will be the only country in the middle east with such contracts privatising Iraqi oil and giving foreign companies crazy rates of profit that may reach to more than three fourth of the general revenue. Iraq and Iraqis need every Dinar that comes from oil sales. In addition to the financial aspects of this law, it can be considered the funding tool for splitting Iraq into three states. It undermines the central government and distributes oil revenues directly to the three regions, which sets the foundations for what Iraq's enemies are trying to achieve in terms of establishing three independent states.
http://raedinthemiddle
-
There goes another "we're stealing their oil" argument. . . . .
Private firms managing iraqi oil? for non-market rates?
beach bum has been saying for months that this is nonsense.
many of us have been saying for months that this is exactly the plan.
now that the writing is on the wall, i think we should deliver beach bukkake our collective testicular payloads.
-
This is what we went to war for... and now we have it.
http://www.al-ghad.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/iraqi_oil_law.pdf
It's a 29-page legal document - so it won't be recreational reading. But here's a blogger's summary...
This law legalizes PSAs (production sharing agreements) in Iraq. Iraq will be the only country in the middle east with such contracts privatising Iraqi oil and giving foreign companies crazy rates of profit that may reach to more than three fourth of the general revenue. Iraq and Iraqis need every Dinar that comes from oil sales. In addition to the financial aspects of this law, it can be considered the funding tool for splitting Iraq into three states. It undermines the central government and distributes oil revenues directly to the three regions, which sets the foundations for what Iraq's enemies are trying to achieve in terms of establishing three independent states.
http://raedinthemiddle
Doesn't exactly sound like we are forcing low prices at gun point like you try to say...
-
"Doesn't exactly sound like we are forcing low prices at gun point like you try to say..."
I know. You believe that they're giving us "crazy rates of profit that may reach to more than three fourth of the general revenue" because they're grateful to us, for destroying their oil infrastructure and rebuilding it while ousting saddam and importing terror.
At this point, you now see that yes, we're getting the oil below market value. You're trying to change the argument to their motive now. That's fine if you want to change it, seeing as I have proven the point.
-
"Doesn't exactly sound like we are forcing low prices at gun point like you try to say..."
I know. You believe that they're giving us "crazy rates of profit that may reach to more than three fourth of the general revenue" because they're grateful to us, for destroying their oil infrastructure and rebuilding it while ousting saddam and importing terror.
At this point, you now see that yes, we're getting the oil below market value. You're trying to change the argument to their motive now. That's fine if you want to change it, seeing as I have proven the point.
I never argued with you that we were getting it cheaper, getting a little excited there son. I just don't think we are "stealing it" and that's all I have to say about that....
-
and now he has been caught in 2 huge lies in the last few days that he was passionately arguing!!! Hmmmm, who is credible?
What were the two huge lies I was caught in?
-
What were the two huge lies I was caught in?
Lies is really a wrong classification...the guard issue for one, and looks like we aren't stealing oil at gunpoint either. The F-16s at Andrews will be #3.
-
The US may or may not have invaded Iraq for the oil, but we sure as hell aren't leaving without it.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/01/08/iraq-oil.html
The production sharing agreements give foreign oil companies an interest in Iraq's own resources. And the best argument in support of this is that, since Iraqi oil extraction capacity has been decimated due to war, the PSAs are the best way to help them out.
Talk about nonsense: The US devastates Iraq's infrastructure (workforce) for drilling and then the oil companies negotiate PSAs w/ the Iraqi Ministry of Oil that favors the oil companies. Wow.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2004/0128oilprofit.htm
"Under PSAs, a country retains legal ownership of its oil but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries, the newspaper said."
Multiple companies from other countries will invest in infrastructure and receive a ROI. This isn't the U.S. government profiting.
-
Private firms managing iraqi oil? for non-market rates?
beach bum has been saying for months that this is nonsense.
many of us have been saying for months that this is exactly the plan.
now that the writing is on the wall, i think we should deliver beach bukkake our collective testicular payloads.
Beach Bum has been saying for months that 240's contention that we went to war in Iraq so a handful of private companies could obtain contracts to "manage the pipeline" is nonsense. Beach Bum still believes this. :)
You have already admitted you know nothing about these alleged contracts. Your theory is ridiculous.
-
Beach Bum has been saying for months that 240's contention that we went to war in Iraq so a handful of private companies could obtain contracts to "manage the pipeline" is nonsense. Beach Bum still believes this. :)
You have already admitted you know nothing about these alleged contracts. Your theory is ridiculous.
You are so naive it is hilarious. How many leases to public bridges do you keep in your stock portfolio?
-
You are so naive it is hilarious. How many leases to public bridges do you keep in your stock portfolio?
lol. How many conspiracy theories do you believe in? Should I list them again? lol . . .
-
So let me get this straight.... please feel free to guide or correct me...
So we (our companies) are sharing oil profits with Iraqi oil?
I talked about this a few months back, about how we manipulate a country's resources via their legal system in a democratic government. This seems exactly what it is.
would some of these companies included Haliburton?
To me this whole thing doesn't sound right. I understand where MM69 wouldn't call it theft, but that's profiting from a countries oil, profits that should be going to the Iraqis not out companies. It's not theft, but it's unfair leverage.
Did the Iraqi people vote for this?
-
So let me get this straight.... please feel free to guide or correct me...
So we (our companies) are sharing oil profits with Iraqi oil?
I talked about this a few months back, about how we manipulate a country's resources via their legal system in a democratic government. This seems exactly what it is.
would some of these companies included Haliburton?
To me this whole thing doesn't sound right. I understand where MM69 wouldn't call it theft, but that's profiting from a countries oil, profits that should be going to the Iraqis not out companies. It's not theft, but it's unfair leverage.
Did the Iraqi people vote for this?
"Under PSAs, a country retains legal ownership of its oil but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries, the newspaper said."
This means companies from other countries, not just the U.S., must invest money in Iraq and will receive a ROI. This isn't exactly a newsflash. It happens all over the world.
-
"Under PSAs, a country retains legal ownership of its oil but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries, the newspaper said."
Multiple companies from other countries will invest in infrastructure and receive a ROI. This isn't the U.S. government profiting.
Whether the US gov. profits from the PSAs or not is not relevant. US oil companies will profit. If those companies are HQd in the US and pay any US tax from the new revenue generated by Iraqi oil, then you could say that the US gov. is profiting. That's a bit convoluted but nonetheless private foreign oil interests--most of which are US/UK based or affiliated--now have access to Iraqi oil and will profit from something that was effectively taken from the Iraqis.
The point is that prior to the US invasion, the oil was nationalized in Iraq's interest. We have ended that. Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment. The Iraqis get the shit end of the stick in these deals. But that was the point in arranging them.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4
-
...This means companies from other countries, not just the U.S., must invest money in Iraq and will receive a ROI. This isn't exactly a newsflash. It happens all over the world.
No it doesn't happen this way at all. This is quite unique in that it eliminates Iraq as a forum for any PSA dispute resolution. But more important:
"According to International Energy Agency figures, PSAs are only used in respect of about 12% of world oil reserves, "in countries where oilfields are small (and often offshore), production costs are high, and exploration prospects are uncertain. None of these conditions applies to Iraq.
None of the top oil producers in the Middle East uses PSAs. Some governments that have signed them regret doing so. In Russia, where political upheaval was followed by rapid opening up to the private sector in the 1990s, PSAs have cost the state billions of dollars, making it unlikely that any more will be signed. The parallel with Iraq's current transition is obvious. "
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4
So as you can see, Iraq is 'special' case.
-
Whether the US gov. profits from the PSAs or not is not relevant. US oil companies will profit. If those companies are HQd in the US and pay any US tax from the new revenue generated by Iraqi oil, then you could say that the US gov. is profiting. That's a bit convoluted but nonetheless private foreign oil interests--most of which are US/UK based or affiliated--now have access to Iraqi oil and will profit from something that was effectively taken from the Iraqis.
The point is that prior to the US invasion, the oil was nationalized in Iraq's interest. We have ended that. Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment. The Iraqis get the shit end of the stick in these deals. But that was the point in arranging them.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4
Wow, that's some serious bitchslappage going down on beach bum.
I'm sure he can explain why he said the US govt isn't profiting when by virtue of tax rev alone, they are, by definition.
-
Wow, that's some serious bitchslappage going down on beach bum.
I'm sure he can explain why he said the US govt isn't profiting when by virtue of tax rev alone, they are, by definition.
Ok so then we are wetting our beaks?
So this thing about we aren't profiting from their oil isn't true?
This is proof?
-
Whether the US gov. profits from the PSAs or not is not relevant. US oil companies will profit. If those companies are HQd in the US and pay any US tax from the new revenue generated by Iraqi oil, then you could say that the US gov. is profiting. That's a bit convoluted but nonetheless private foreign oil interests--most of which are US/UK based or affiliated--now have access to Iraqi oil and will profit from something that was effectively taken from the Iraqis.
The point is that prior to the US invasion, the oil was nationalized in Iraq's interest. We have ended that. Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment. The Iraqis get the shit end of the stick in these deals. But that was the point in arranging them.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4
Not relevant? Depends on what the issue is. There are those who believe we went to war so the U.S. could steal Iraq's oil. So whether or not these PSA's allow the U.S. government to profit is highly relevant to that dumb belief.
And re the tax issue: we discussed on here the other day the fact that good U.S. companies don't pay much in taxes. I posted a link (not sure if it's accurate) that showed Halliburton paid about $15 million in taxes in 2002. A drop in the bucket. The tax revenue to the U.S. government will be statistically insignificant. Certainly not enough to justify a war.
Before the war, Saddam was pilfering the country. There is far greater transparency of Iraq's oil revenue today than when Saddam was in power. I still don't think they are managing their money properly, but we know much about their revenue.
And PSA's don't end Iraq's control over their oil. It gives international companies the right to invest in Iraq and make some money. This is actually win-win.
-
No it doesn't happen this way at all. This is quite unique in that it eliminates Iraq as a forum for any PSA dispute resolution. But more important:
"According to International Energy Agency figures, PSAs are only used in respect of about 12% of world oil reserves, "in countries where oilfields are small (and often offshore), production costs are high, and exploration prospects are uncertain. None of these conditions applies to Iraq.
None of the top oil producers in the Middle East uses PSAs. Some governments that have signed them regret doing so. In Russia, where political upheaval was followed by rapid opening up to the private sector in the 1990s, PSAs have cost the state billions of dollars, making it unlikely that any more will be signed. The parallel with Iraq's current transition is obvious. "
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4
So as you can see, Iraq is 'special' case.
I disagree. We permit foreign companies to invest here all the time. Do you know how many businesses and real estate are owned in Hawaii by Japanese nationals? Hint: it's a lot. I don't see these PSAs as any different than the kind of foreign investment that goes on all around the world.
Now, the dispute resolution issue is something I've wondered about. What is your source for your contention that the PSA "eliminates Iraq as a forum for any PSA dispute resolution"?
-
Ok so then we are wetting our beaks?
So this thing about we aren't profiting from their oil isn't true?
This is proof?
No it isn't. And I still haven't seen the proof that we are buying oil under market value, which was the question that started this thread.
-
Whether the US gov. profits from the PSAs or not is not relevant. US oil companies will profit. If those companies are HQd in the US and pay any US tax from the new revenue generated by Iraqi oil, then you could say that the US gov. is profiting. That's a bit convoluted but nonetheless private foreign oil interests--most of which are US/UK based or affiliated--now have access to Iraqi oil and will profit from something that was effectively taken from the Iraqis.
The point is that prior to the US invasion, the oil was nationalized in Iraq's interest. We have ended that. Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment. The Iraqis get the shit end of the stick in these deals. But that was the point in arranging them.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4
but under the new policy, all 3 religious sects will share in the oil profits that Iraq gets. Where did all the money go before?
-
Not relevant? Depends on what the issue is. There are those who believe we went to war so the U.S. could steal Iraq's oil. So whether or not these PSA's allow the U.S. government to profit is highly relevant to that dumb belief.
And re the tax issue: we discussed on here the other day the fact that good U.S. companies don't pay much in taxes. I posted a link (not sure if it's accurate) that showed Halliburton paid about $15 million in taxes in 2002. A drop in the bucket. The tax revenue to the U.S. government will be statistically insignificant. Certainly not enough to justify a war.
Before the war, Saddam was pilfering the country. There is far greater transparency of Iraq's oil revenue today than when Saddam was in power. I still don't think they are managing their money properly, but we know much about their revenue.
And PSA's don't end Iraq's control over their oil. It gives international companies the right to invest in Iraq and make some money. This is actually win-win.
Wrong. It is not a win-win situation unless the parties involved are multinational oil companies and the politicians fixing Iraqi law to benefit the foreign (to Iraq) oil industry. "The Iraqi government would be left with control of only the 17 fields that are already in production, out of around 80 known fields." http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4 Also, before the invasion, the Iraqi oil was Iraq's--it wasn't held in common with foreigners.
Transparency? Great. The Iraqis can watch the foreign investors walk off with the money. " ...the proposed agreements (with US State Department origins) will prove a bonanza for oil companies but a disaster for the Iraqi people: "At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts, from only the first 12 oilfields to be developed." http://www.organicconsumers.org/politics/iraq120505.cfm
The Iraqi people had nothing to say about the selling off of their country's most abundant and valuable resource--the US imposed PSAs on Iraq courtesy of Paul Bremer.
-
I disagree. We permit foreign companies to invest here all the time. Do you know how many businesses and real estate are owned in Hawaii by Japanese nationals? Hint: it's a lot. I don't see these PSAs as any different than the kind of foreign investment that goes on all around the world.
Now, the dispute resolution issue is something I've wondered about. What is your source for your contention that the PSA "eliminates Iraq as a forum for any PSA dispute resolution"?
"And the contracts often stipulate that disputes are heard not in the country’s own courts but in international investment tribunals, which make their decisions on commercial grounds and do not consider the national interest or other national laws." http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4
The PSAs you refer to aren't nearly as draconian in effect as the one's forced on Iraq. Tell me, did the Japanese force the PSAs on Hawaii or was there equal footing in bargaining?
The Iraqi people had no choice in the matter.
-
but under the new policy, all 3 religious sects will share in the oil profits that Iraq gets. Where did all the money go before?
That is irrelevant. The business of the Iraqi people was there own. Nor does your point justify the imposition of PSAs on Iraqi oil resources.
Also, since I am of the opinion that the invasion was illegal, I view this oil grab as nothing but plunder.
-
Wrong. It is not a win-win situation unless the parties involved are multinational oil companies and the politicians fixing Iraqi law to benefit the foreign (to Iraq) oil industry. "The Iraqi government would be left with control of only the 17 fields that are already in production, out of around 80 known fields." http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4 Also, before the invasion, the Iraqi oil was Iraq's--it wasn't held in common with foreigners.
Transparency? Great. The Iraqis can watch the foreign investors walk off with the money. " ...the proposed agreements (with US State Department origins) will prove a bonanza for oil companies but a disaster for the Iraqi people: "At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts, from only the first 12 oilfields to be developed." http://www.organicconsumers.org/politics/iraq120505.cfm
The Iraqi people had nothing to say about the selling off of their country's most abundant and valuable resource--the US imposed PSAs on Iraq courtesy of Paul Bremer.
I disagree. It is win-win, because foreign companies have to invest, likely bricks and mortar, before they get a ROI. There is an absolute benefit to Iraq if companies invest in Iraq's infrastructure.
I don't know who Greg Muttitt is, but the title of his article sure sounds like he has an agenda: "Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth." What's his analysis of how much Saddam stole from the Iraqi people? Iraq's oil was Saddam's before the war. It certainly didn't belong to the Iraqi people.
And if the Iraqi government is responsible for these PSAs then it was indeed the Iraqi people behind this effort. The Iraqi people elected their current government.
-
"And the contracts often stipulate that disputes are heard not in the country’s own courts but in international investment tribunals, which make their decisions on commercial grounds and do not consider the national interest or other national laws." http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm#A4
The PSAs you refer to aren't nearly as draconian in effect as the one's forced on Iraq. Tell me, did the Japanese force the PSAs on Hawaii or was there equal footing in bargaining?
The Iraqi people had no choice in the matter.
So he isn't referring to the actual contracts themselves? You need to read the specific forum selection language before concluding Iraq would not be the forum for dispute resolution.
I'm not referring to PSAs and Japan. I'm talking about foreign investment in general. It is very common.
How could the Iraqi people have no choice if the government they elected made the decision? That's how a representative government works.
-
I disagree. It is win-win, because foreign companies have to invest, likely bricks and mortar, before they get a ROI. There is an absolute benefit to Iraq if companies invest in Iraq's infrastructure.
I don't know who Greg Muttitt is, but the title of his article sure sounds like he has an agenda: "Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq’s Oil Wealth." What's his analysis of how much Saddam stole from the Iraqi people? Iraq's oil was Saddam's before the war. It certainly didn't belong to the Iraqi people.
And if the Iraqi government is responsible for these PSAs then it was indeed the Iraqi people behind this effort. The Iraqi people elected their current government.
The United States was not the arbiter of Iraq's allocation of oil revenues undre Hussein. Why is that our business?
You are not reading my posts. The Iraqi government is not responsible for the PSAs. "Bremer was in charge from May 6, 2003 to June 28, 2004. He had complete legislative, executive and judicial authority over Iraq."
"Bremer had the power to create laws by issuing "binding instructions or directives." Bremer issued 100 Orders, Juhasz in 2005 interview describes some of the key orders" Here's a laundry list of some of his legislative efforts:
"Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.
"Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.
"Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.
"Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.
"Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.
"Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.
"Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors."
"To further embed a U.S. corporate economy in Iraq, the Iraq Constitution contained provisions that approve the Bremer Orders."
Interim Prime Minister "Allawi called for all undeveloped oil and gas fields to be turned over to private international oil companies. This, at a time when only seventeen of Iraq's eighty known oil fields have been developed. Article 109 of the Iraq Constitution re-enforces this goal stating that the federal government only administers existing oil and gas fields."
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/483/151/
The benefit to the Iraqi people is marginal next to invisible in light of the fact that all of the oil was at one time theirs.
-
So he isn't referring to the actual contracts themselves? You need to read the specific forum selection language before concluding Iraq would not be the forum for dispute resolution.
I'm not referring to PSAs and Japan. I'm talking about foreign investment in general. It is very common.
How could the Iraqi people have no choice if the government they elected made the decision? That's how a representative government works.
Please refer to my other post showing that the Iraq people had zero voice in the disposition of their own resources.
So are you saying that PSAs in general are unilaterally thrust on the country that has the natural resources and that country has no voice in the bargaining of that PSA?
I think you are mistaken but if you have evidence, please provide it.
-
The United States was not the arbiter of Iraq's allocation of oil revenues undre Hussein. Why is that our business?
You are not reading my posts. The Iraqi government is not responsible for the PSAs. "Bremer was in charge from May 6, 2003 to June 28, 2004. He had complete legislative, executive and judicial authority over Iraq."
"Bremer had the power to create laws by issuing "binding instructions or directives." Bremer issued 100 Orders, Juhasz in 2005 interview describes some of the key orders" Here's a laundry list of some of his legislative efforts:
"Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.
"Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.
"Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.
"Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.
"Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.
"Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.
"Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors."
"To further embed a U.S. corporate economy in Iraq, the Iraq Constitution contained provisions that approve the Bremer Orders."
Interim Prime Minister "Allawi called for all undeveloped oil and gas fields to be turned over to private international oil companies. This, at a time when only seventeen of Iraq's eighty known oil fields have been developed. Article 109 of the Iraq Constitution re-enforces this goal stating that the federal government only administers existing oil and gas fields."
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/483/151/
The benefit to the Iraqi people is marginal next to invisible in light of the fact that all of the oil was at one time theirs.
That seems like it in a nutshell here.....
Creating laws in a democracy that favor the USA or other foreign entities economically concerning that countries resources.
It's like doing business with a loan shark. ;D
-
The United States was not the arbiter of Iraq's allocation of oil revenues undre Hussein. Why is that our business?
You are not reading my posts. The Iraqi government is not responsible for the PSAs. "Bremer was in charge from May 6, 2003 to June 28, 2004. He had complete legislative, executive and judicial authority over Iraq."
"Bremer had the power to create laws by issuing "binding instructions or directives." Bremer issued 100 Orders, Juhasz in 2005 interview describes some of the key orders" Here's a laundry list of some of his legislative efforts:
"Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.
"Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.
"Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.
"Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.
"Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.
"Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.
"Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors."
"To further embed a U.S. corporate economy in Iraq, the Iraq Constitution contained provisions that approve the Bremer Orders."
Interim Prime Minister "Allawi called for all undeveloped oil and gas fields to be turned over to private international oil companies. This, at a time when only seventeen of Iraq's eighty known oil fields have been developed. Article 109 of the Iraq Constitution re-enforces this goal stating that the federal government only administers existing oil and gas fields."
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/483/151/
The benefit to the Iraqi people is marginal next to invisible in light of the fact that all of the oil was at one time theirs.
I am reading your posts. I just don't agree with everything you say. I have no basis on which to disagree with this guy's article. I haven't done the research. And like I said, it sounds like he has an agenda. I'm cynical.
But I will concede that if everything he says is true in the excerpts you quoted, and that "Bremer was in charge" without any involvement of the Iraqi government, that it wasn't the Iraqi government who came up with this PSA idea.
That said, if countries haven't actually signed PSAs with Iraq, I find it hard to believe they can do so now without the involvement of the Iraqi government.
-
Please refer to my other post showing that the Iraq people had zero voice in the disposition of their own resources.
So are you saying that PSAs in general are unilaterally thrust on the country that has the natural resources and that country has no voice in the bargaining of that PSA?
I think you are mistaken but if you have evidence, please provide it.
I'm saying a few things. First, "You need to read the specific forum selection language before concluding Iraq would not be the forum for dispute resolution." Do you have the specific language?
Second, foreign investment is not uncommon. But I conceded in a prior post that assuming everything in the article is accurate, that the Iraqi people didn't negotiate these PSAs.
One other note: Iraq didn't have a government after we overthrew Saddam, so I'm not surprised that someone made a decision. Keep in mind that we overthrew a government that was pilfering the Iraqi resources.
-
I am reading your posts. I just don't agree with everything you say. I have no basis on which to disagree with this guy's article. I haven't done the research. And like I said, it sounds like he has an agenda. I'm cynical.
But I will concede that if everything he says is true in the excerpts you quoted, and that "Bremer was in charge" without any involvement of the Iraqi government, that it wasn't the Iraqi government who came up with this PSA idea.
That said, if countries haven't actually signed PSAs with Iraq, I find it hard to believe they can do so now without the involvement of the Iraqi government.
Are you kidding me? Even if the iraqi government came up with the idea who in there right mind would willfully choose terms such as these unless there was pressure form the USA or corruption was invovled:
"Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.
"Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.
"Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.
"Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.
"Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.
"Order No. 49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.
"Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors."
"To further embed a U.S. corporate economy in Iraq, the Iraq Constitution contained provisions that approve the Bremer Orders."
Interim Prime Minister "Allawi called for all undeveloped oil and gas fields to be turned over to private international oil companies. This, at a time when only seventeen of Iraq's eighty known oil fields have been developed. Article 109 of the Iraq Constitution re-enforces this goal stating that the federal government only administers existing oil and gas fields."
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/483/151/
The benefit to the Iraqi people is marginal next to invisible in light of the fact that all of the oil was at one time theirs.
BB, we've talk about this before, about how we engineer favorable circumstances with-in governments we help create in the aftermath of a revolution or in this case and invasion.
this is one screwed up deal for the Iraqi people. We are raping them. Even a junior high School Business kid wouldn''t go for a deal like this.
-
I'm saying a few things. First, "You need to read the specific forum selection language before concluding Iraq would not be the forum for dispute resolution." Do you have the specific language?
Second, foreign investment is not uncommon. But I conceded in a prior post that assuming everything in the article is accurate, that the Iraqi people didn't negotiate these PSAs.
One other note: Iraq didn't have a government after we overthrew Saddam, so I'm not surprised that someone made a decision. Keep in mind that we overthrew a government that was pilfering the Iraqi resources.
Foreign investment, of course, is not uncommon, but under these terms foreign investment should be called windfall investment.
we might not be pilfering iraqi resources the same way or in the same scope as Saddam was....but geez.......What do we call this?
-
I'm saying a few things. First, "You need to read the specific forum selection language before concluding Iraq would not be the forum for dispute resolution." Do you have the specific language?
Second, foreign investment is not uncommon. But I conceded in a prior post that assuming everything in the article is accurate, that the Iraqi people didn't negotiate these PSAs.
One other note: Iraq didn't have a government after we overthrew Saddam, so I'm not surprised that someone made a decision. Keep in mind that we overthrew a government that was pilfering the Iraqi resources.
And I will concede that the language of PSAs re choice of forum is not unique to the Iraqi PSA but that it is common to all PSAs. That's what I get for trying to multi-task here at work.
Foreign investment happens as the result of bargaining between 2 parties...one of which is foreign. The selling off of Iraqi infrastructure (not just the oil assets) is indicative of a plunder. Only in this case, the plunder is not absolute rather it is given the veneer of propriety b/c Iraq is given a taste of the gate, so to speak, even though the infrastructure was Iraqi property.
This privatization of foreign infrastructure strikes me as anti-capitalist and anti-free market b/c bargaining was absent and the side with the most bargaining leverage lost out.
-
Are you kidding me? Even if the iraqi government came up with the idea who in there right mind would willfully choose terms such as these unless there was pressure form the USA or corruption was invovled:
BB, we've talk about this before, about how we engineer favorable circumstances with-in governments we help create in the aftermath of a revolution or in this case and invasion.
this is one screwed up deal for the Iraqi people. We are raping them. Even a junior high School Business kid wouldn''t go for a deal like this.
Actually, Saddam raped the Iraqi people.
What I'd like to know is whether these "Orders" are still the law of the land in Iraq. Sounds like they were stop-gap measures, because the country had no government. Even if they are still "the law," in reading them they sound to me like an attempt to attract business to a war-torn country. Of course there had to be major incentives to attract business to place where you have to worry about getting your head blown off when you go to work.
I'm not about to conclude that our government was involved in corruption to help rebuild the country based on this guy's article. There are good and bad deals, laws, etc. all the time. How often have we been raped by foreign governments when it comes to taxes and our exports?
And whatever we are doing, it is an improvement over the dictator who stole the country's resources for decades.
-
Actually, Saddam raped the Iraqi people.
What I'd like to know is whether these "Orders" are still the law of the land in Iraq. Sounds like they were stop-gap measures, because the country had no government. Even if they are still "the law," in reading them they sound to me like an attempt to attract business to a war-torn country. Of course there had to be major incentives to attract business to place where you have to worry about getting your head blown off when you go to work.
I'm not about to conclude that our government was involved in corruption to help rebuild the country based on this guy's article. There are good and bad deals, laws, etc. all the time. How often have we been raped by foreign governments when it comes to taxes and our exports?
And whatever we are doing, it is an improvement over the dictator who stole the country's resources for decades.
I agree that what ever we are doing it's better then what Saddam was doing.
But we are profiting from their resources, profit that should go to the Iraqi people.
i like the one that's very comparable to Walmart opening in a small town, where we took away the tarifs and essentially closed down Iraqi businesses because they couldn't compete with the low price of foreign goods being sold in their country. Brilliant.
Those terms are awful, No wonder why France was so eager to get into the "rebuild" Iraq circus.
-
And I will concede that the language of PSAs re choice of forum is not unique to the Iraqi PSA but that it is common to all PSAs. That's what I get for trying to multi-task here at work.
Foreign investment happens as the result of bargaining between 2 parties...one of which is foreign. The selling off of Iraqi infrastructure (not just the oil assets) is indicative of a plunder. Only in this case, the plunder is not absolute rather it is given the veneer of propriety b/c Iraq is given a taste of the gate, so to speak, even though the infrastructure was Iraqi property.
This privatization of foreign infrastructure strikes me as anti-capitalist and anti-free market b/c bargaining was absent and the side with the most bargaining leverage lost out.
Hey I multi-task all the time. :) Keeping working at it. It gets easier.
Decker I don't see plunder here. Even if it is a "bad" business deal, there is a definite benefit to the Iraqi people. How hard do you think it is to attract good businesses to a war zone? And it sounds like they don't have the internal expertise to do their own construction. I was talking to a friend this past weekend who is stationed in Iraq and he described large parts of Iraq as primitive.
I really don't see the logical distinction between the international investment in Iraq and the foreign investment that happens in the U.S. As I look out my office window, I would estimate at least 30 percent, and possibly more, of the office buildings are foreign owned. I understand there are negotiations between private entities and that under the orders in the article you posted there apparently wasn't negotiation (or was there?). But the end result is essentially the same: foreign investment.
-
Actually, Saddam raped the Iraqi people.
What I'd like to know is whether these "Orders" are still the law of the land in Iraq. Sounds like they were stop-gap measures, because the country had no government. Even if they are still "the law," in reading them they sound to me like an attempt to attract business to a war-torn country. Of course there had to be major incentives to attract business to place where you have to worry about getting your head blown off when you go to work.
I'm not about to conclude that our government was involved in corruption to help rebuild the country based on this guy's article. There are good and bad deals, laws, etc. all the time. How often have we been raped by foreign governments when it comes to taxes and our exports?
And whatever we are doing, it is an improvement over the dictator who stole the country's resources for decades.
What Saddam did was his business. The assertion that we may rob the Iraqi people a little less than the former ruler is poor justification for your contention.
The Iraqi constitution codified the rulings of Bremer.
"How often have we (the US) been raped by foreign gov. when it comes to taxes and our exports?" I don't know. What's the world's fastest animal?
Why is this stuff relevant to the US/UK taking advantage of Iraq to put oil companies in a superior position with respect to Iraqi oil? It's not. What the US has done is inexcusable.
Once again, you claim the right to step into Iraqi affairs, pass your own judgment and dole out the sentence.
Where do you get this right? Where does the US get this right?
-
BB, do you think we should allow foreign investment in this country under terms like those?
Can't compare the two IMO.
-
What Saddam did was his business. The assertion that we may rob the Iraqi people a little less than the former ruler is poor justification for your contention.
The Iraqi constitution codified the rulings of Bremer.
"How often have we (the US) been raped by foreign gov. when it comes to taxes and our exports?" I don't know. What's the world's fastest animal?
Why is this stuff relevant to the US/UK taking advantage of Iraq to put oil companies in a superior position with respect to Iraqi oil? It's not. What the US has done is inexcusable.
Once again, you claim the right to step into Iraqi affairs, pass your own judgment and dole out the sentence.
Where do you get this right? Where does the US get this right?
I did not say we are robbing the Iraqi people. I don't believe that.
We stepped in and enacted rules, orders, laws, or whatever because they had none. The country was run by a dictator. What were we supposed to do? Make no decisions until their government was in place? We did what was necessary.
-
BB, do you think we should allow foreign investment in this country under terms like those?
Can't compare the two IMO.
I don't know what laws govern foreign investment in our country, but they're probably pretty liberal. That's why we have so much foreign owned property and businesses in Hawaii. They're all over the place.
So, I guess the short answer is we allow whatever foreign investment that legally crosses the border under whatever terms they are able to negotiate.
-
I did not say we are robbing the Iraqi people. I don't believe that.
We stepped in and enacted rules, orders, laws, or whatever because they had none. The country was run by a dictator. What were we supposed to do? Make no decisions until their government was in place? We did what was necessary.
So we couldn't have made decisions that at least were FAIR to the Iraqi people when it came to their industry?
I don;t get what you are saying here.
It seems like you are justifying exploitation here.
-
I don't know what laws govern foreign investment in our country, but they're probably pretty liberal. That's why we have so much foreign owned property and businesses in Hawaii. They're all over the place.
So, I guess the short answer is we allow whatever foreign investment that legally crosses the border under whatever terms they are able to negotiate.
You might want to re-read those terms. I doubt any investment in this country has terms like that.
People invest in the USA because of our economy and our strong middle class. Buying property in the US is a no-brainer if you can do it. Japanese investors saw the market potential of Hawaii long ago and started investing. There investing terms are probably similar to the US companies and individuals who invest in the USA also.
-
Hey I multi-task all the time. :) Keeping working at it. It gets easier.
Decker I don't see plunder here. Even if it is a "bad" business deal, there is a definite benefit to the Iraqi people. How hard do you think it is to attract good businesses to a war zone? And it sounds like they don't have the internal expertise to do their own construction. I was talking to a friend this past weekend who is stationed in Iraq and he described large parts of Iraq as primitive.
I really don't see the logical distinction between the international investment in Iraq and the foreign investment that happens in the U.S. As I look out my office window, I would estimate at least 30 percent, and possibly more, of the office buildings are foreign owned. I understand there are negotiations between private entities and that under the orders in the article you posted there apparently wasn't negotiation (or was there?). But the end result is essentially the same: foreign investment.
Yeah, but I'm really bad at it--I'll quantify that statement someday.
Let me understand this.
Congress grants the president authority to use force against Iraq (pursuant to War Powers Resolution presumably)
The president goes to the UN seeking to enforce UN Resolutions against Iraq for WMDs
(He had to, Iraq did not attack the US nor was attack imminent nor did Iraq attack an ally of ours)
The US attacks Iraq in violation of UN Res. 1441. b/c Bush ordered the attack before the WMD inspectors finish inspecting for WMDs
The US stays and occupies Iraq giving foreign investors access to most Iraqi infrastructure and the Iraq people are helpless to do anything about it. PSAs have a shelf life of 25-40 years. (Is this typical foreign investment?)
Now granted the Iraqi people get some crumbs thrown their way but why does the bulk of profit have to go to corporations outside of Iraq?
The business of Iraq is the Iraqi's concern...not the US or UK's.
-
So we couldn't have made decisions that at least were FAIR to the Iraqi people when it came to their industry?
I don;t get what you are saying here.
It seems like you are justifying exploitation here.
We're just disagreeing on whether the terms were "fair" to the Iraqi people. As I read them, in context, they don't seem "unfair" to me if the purpose was to attract business, when the Iraqi people apparently couldn't do the business themselves. Looks like major incentives to attract international business.
-
So we couldn't have made decisions that at least were FAIR to the Iraqi people when it came to their industry?
I don;t get what you are saying here.
It seems like you are justifying exploitation here.
That's an excellent point. The free market is predicated on bargaining. The US moved into Iraq and removed that option from the Iraqi people regarding their own resources.
-
So did it turn out that 240 was correct in his original point or is he wrong as others have asserted?
-
We're just disagreeing on whether the terms were "fair" to the Iraqi people. As I read them, in context, they don't seem "unfair" to me if the purpose was to attract business, when the Iraqi people apparently couldn't do the business themselves. Looks like major incentives to attract international business.
Is it "fair" at the expense of the Iraqi people?
Let's take a look:
"Order No. 39 allows for: (1) privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) "national treatment" — which means no preferences for local over foreign businesses; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses.
"Thus, it forbids Iraqis from receiving preference in the reconstruction while allowing foreign corporations — Halliburton and Bechtel, for example — to buy up Iraqi businesses, do all of the work and send all of their money home. They cannot be required to hire Iraqis or to reinvest their money in the Iraqi economy. They can take out their investments at any time and in any amount.
So if you read this, we come in and dispose of the current dictator, and don't allow Iraqi's a first opportunity at their own state owned enterprises but instead allow foreign investors to either outbid them or beat them to it. And they get it tax free.
Is this fair to the Iraqis?
Are we saying there isn't any construction companies in Iraq or construction workers?
"Orders No. 57 and No. 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations.
You think we are going to place people in these minitries who aren't going to protect our interests? We've talked about this before and here's it is in black and white.
"Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.
We are allowing foreign companies not be immune to Iraqi laws? And you are comparing this with foreign investment in the USA?
"Order No. 40 allows foreign banks to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.
So we allowed foreign companies to come in and take over 50% of the banking in Iraq rather than keep the banks and the revenue from loans int eh hand sof the Iraqis?
"Order No. 12 (renewed on Feb. 24) suspends "all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq." This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap foreign consumer products — devastating local producers and sellers who were thoroughly unprepared to meet the challenge of their mammoth global competitors."
"To further embed a U.S. corporate economy in Iraq, the Iraq Constitution contained provisions that approve the Bremer Orders."
Would we do this in the USA? would we ever allow this? How is this fair BB? we just allowed thousands of Iraqi owned business to get undercut.
Interim Prime Minister "Allawi called for all undeveloped oil and gas fields to be turned over to private international oil companies. This, at a time when only seventeen of Iraq's eighty known oil fields have been developed. Article 109 of the Iraq Constitution re-enforces this goal stating that the federal government only administers existing oil and gas fields."
http://democracyrising.us/content/view/483/151/
This is the most despicable of all, Allawi, who is obviously not on the side of his own people just gave 63 oil fields to foreign companies. That's Iraq's oil that was given away. Would you call that fair?
The more and more i read this the worse it is.
this is plain exploitation.
-
Is it "fair" at the expense of the Iraqi people?
Let's take a look:
So if you read this, we come in and dispose of the current dictator, and don't allow Iraqi's a first opportunity at their own state owned enterprises but instead allow foreign investors to either outbid them or beat them to it. And they get it tax free.
Is this fair to the Iraqis?
Are we saying there isn't any construction companies in Iraq or construction workers?
You think we are going to place people in these minitries who aren't going to protect our interests? We've talked about this before and here's it is in black and white.
We are allowing foreign companies not be immune to Iraqi laws? And you are comparing this with foreign investment in the USA?
So we allowed foreign companies to come in and take over 50% of the banking in Iraq rather than keep the banks and the revenue from loans int eh hand sof the Iraqis?
Would we do this in the USA? would we ever allow this? How is this fair BB? we just allowed thousands of Iraqi owned business to get undercut.
This is the most despicable of all, Allawi, who is obviously not on the side of his own people just gave 63 oil fields to foreign companies. That's Iraq's oil that was given away. Would you call that fair?
The more and more i read this the worse it is.
this is plain exploitation.
Like I said, it looks to me like major incentives to attract international business to do work that the Iraqis probably cannot do on their own. I am not bothered by the tax incentives, banks, or immunity. I don't like the preference issue (assuming the article is correct). But at the end of the day, they are inviting foreign companies to invest in Iraq and make some money in return. I'm not worked up over this. We have foreign owned businesses all over the United States. This isn't groundbreaking. I would be much more concerned if we were displacing Iraqi workers, or if the U.S. was the only country permitted to take advantage of these "Orders." A lot of Iraq is backwater (according to my friend). He said you can go into a town and people will be bathing and urinating in the same river (different parts of the river). Sounds to me like Iraq needs foreign labor and money.
-
Like I said, it looks to me like major incentives to attract international business to do work that the Iraqis probably cannot do on their own. I am not bothered by the tax incentives, banks, or immunity. I don't like the preference issue (assuming the article is correct). But at the end of the day, they are inviting foreign companies to invest in Iraq and make some money in return. I'm not worked up over this. We have foreign owned businesses all over the United States. This isn't groundbreaking. I would be much more concerned if we were displacing Iraqi workers, or if the U.S. was the only country permitted to take advantage of these "Orders." A lot of Iraq is backwater (according to my friend). He said you can go into a town and people will be bathing and urinating in the same river (different parts of the river). Sounds to me like Iraq needs foreign labor and money.
I see those "incentives" as unfair and set up at the expense of the Iraqi people.
Business incentives come in the form of tax breaks not near exclusive rights to resources. Purposely Putting a company in position to get out bid is not putting the interests of the Iraqis first.
It's not that they don't help, but at what cost to their country?
We don't allow foreign companies to operate with those terms and advantages in this country, that's why i don't understand why you keep comparing the 2. Oranges and Apples. They are both fruit but that's it.
And what of the 63 undeveloped oil fields that pretty much other companies own, not the iraqi people?
-
I see those "incentives" as unfair and set up at the expense of the Iraqi people.
Business incentives come in the form of tax breaks not near exclusive rights to resources. Purposely Putting a company in position to get out bid is not putting the interests of the Iraqis first.
It's not that they don't help, but at what cost to their country?
We don't allow foreign companies to operate with those terms and advantages in this country, that's why i don't understand why you keep comparing the 2. Oranges and Apples. They are both fruit but that's it.
And what of the 63 undeveloped oil fields that pretty much other companies own, not the iraqi people?
Sounds like the same tree to me. Maybe bigger fruit. :) We're going in circles. I don't want repeat what I've already said, but I'm not worked up over this. (See my prior responses.)
-
Sounds like the same tree to me. Maybe bigger fruit. :) We're going in circles. I don't want repeat what I've already said, but I'm not worked up over this. (See my prior responses.)
i can see you aren't ;)
-
Like I said, it looks to me like major incentives to attract international business to do work that the Iraqis probably cannot do on their own. I am not bothered by the tax incentives, banks, or immunity. I don't like the preference issue (assuming the article is correct). But at the end of the day, they are inviting foreign companies to invest in Iraq and make some money in return. I'm not worked up over this. We have foreign owned businesses all over the United States. This isn't groundbreaking. I would be much more concerned if we were displacing Iraqi workers, or if the U.S. was the only country permitted to take advantage of these "Orders." A lot of Iraq is backwater (according to my friend). He said you can go into a town and people will be bathing and urinating in the same river (different parts of the river). Sounds to me like Iraq needs foreign labor and money.
BeachBum Iraq is not inviting foreign investors. Prior to the invasion, Iraqi infrastructure was nationalized meaning it belonged to Iraq.
The US/UK invaded Iraq and forced these measures on the Iraqi people.
This is not supposed to be the normal course of business. The Iraqis did not ask for foreign bids to repair a country that we destroyed or to manage an oil industry that we co-opted. We invaded the country and set the terms of how that country was to be run while slicing up its assets.
-
BeachBum Iraq is not inviting foreign investors. Prior to the invasion, Iraqi infrastructure was nationalized meaning it belonged to Iraq.
The US/UK invaded Iraq and forced these measures on the Iraqi people.
This is not supposed to be the normal course of business. The Iraqis did not ask for foreign bids to repair a country that we destroyed or to manage an oil industry that we co-opted. We invaded the country and set the terms of how that country was to be run while slicing up its assets.
"Prior to the invasion, Iraqi infrastructure was nationalized meaning it belonged to Iraq."
lets correct that statement: Prior to the invasion, Iraqi infrastructure was nationalized meaning it belonged to Saddam.
-
So did it turn out that 240 was correct in his original point or is he wrong as others have asserted?
I don't know. I didn't think opec prices were managed that way. Anyways, I think that is not a very big issue compared to selling of Iraq oil rights simply b/c the US illegally invaded the country and ran Iraq as if it were a possession.
-
"Prior to the invasion, Iraqi infrastructure was nationalized meaning it belonged to Iraq."
lets correct that statement: Prior to the invasion, Iraqi infrastructure was nationalized meaning it belonged to Saddam.
Even if that's true, what business is it of yours or the US?
-
BeachBum Iraq is not inviting foreign investors. Prior to the invasion, Iraqi infrastructure was nationalized meaning it belonged to Iraq.
The US/UK invaded Iraq and forced these measures on the Iraqi people.
This is not supposed to be the normal course of business. The Iraqis did not ask for foreign bids to repair a country that we destroyed or to manage an oil industry that we co-opted. We invaded the country and set the terms of how that country was to be run while slicing up its assets.
Decker if they're not inviting foreign investors then who gets the PSAs?
Before the invasion, the entire country, including its oil and infrastructure, was controlled by one man. The Iraqi people didn't control anything before the war. It was one man who pillaged and plundered . . . and kept about a billion dollars under his mattress.
It wasn't just the US/UK. There is a multinational force in Iraq.
We helped set up rules for a country that had none and made it easier for that country to attract investors to rebuild a country that was destroyed by a brutal dictator.
-
It wasn't just the US/UK. There is a multinational force in Iraq.
Have you seen the list of actual number of men from each nation? hilarious!
We helped set up rules for a country that had none
So the country was a lawless mess under saddam?
I thought it was ruled with an iron fist - with MANY rules.
Beach Bum, please back up your claim that "We helped set up rules for a country that had none"
-
I personally like the RULE that say we aren't subject to any RULES!
"Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.
-
I personally like the RULE that say we aren't subject to any RULES!
"Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.
Yeah, some of the iraqis have complained that hardcore A-hole private contractors have been able to cap Iraqi nobodies during heated arguments, and all they have to do is file a report and they get to keep right on working.
-
I personally like the RULE that say we aren't subject to any RULES!
"Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.
sounds similiar to a SOFA agreement
-
sounds similiar to a SOFA agreement
What's a SOFA agreement? I guess i could google it, but you probably have a short answer you could give.
-
Have you seen the list of actual number of men from each nation? hilarious!
So the country was a lawless mess under saddam?
I thought it was ruled with an iron fist - with MANY rules.
Beach Bum, please back up your claim that "We helped set up rules for a country that had none"
::)
-
What's a SOFA agreement? I guess i could google it, but you probably have a short answer you could give.
Status of Forces Agreement. The military tries to develop them in each country we enter. Like in Kuwait we have a SOFA that says if a military member is downtoen and gets in a fight, the military will take care of it. When I went to Guatemala we didn't have one so we were subject to Guatemala's laws
-
Status of Forces Agreement. The military tries to develop them in each country we enter. Like in Kuwait we have a SOFA that says if a military member is downtoen and gets in a fight, the military will take care of it. When I went to Guatemala we didn't have one so we were subject to Guatemala's laws
SOFA. Haven't heard that one in a while. Good analogy.
The Army has an acronym for everything. My favorite was ADONSA days. :)
-
SOFA. Haven't heard that one in a while. Good analogy.
The Army has an acronym for everything. My favorite was ADONSA days. :)
Have to say I haven't heard that one!
-
Have to say I haven't heard that one!
ADONSA = A Day Of No Scheduled Activities. :) Maybe it was just my division.
-
ADONSA = A Day Of No Scheduled Activities. :) Maybe it was just my division.
That is definately an Army term! lol Not to knock the Army but the Air Force doesn't have days like that
-
That is definately an Army term! lol Not to knock the Army but the Air Force doesn't have days like that
Sucks for you! :) Our CG would schedule them after a training exercise and after every holiday, giving us an extra day off. I loved it. But we worked hard.
-
Status of Forces Agreement. The military tries to develop them in each country we enter. Like in Kuwait we have a SOFA that says if a military member is downtoen and gets in a fight, the military will take care of it. When I went to Guatemala we didn't have one so we were subject to Guatemala's laws
The problem is contractors and private security firms aren't going to police themselves. Especially when money is involved. Basically, we just made these people not accountable for their actions and gave them the legal ability to abuse anything they want to make a buck.
The Military is different of course, because they are accountable to the Government and operate with a high level of decency overall with very few exceptions.
-
Sucks for you! :) Our CG would schedule them after a training exercise and after every holiday, giving us an extra day off. I loved it. But we worked hard.
Being stationed at an Army post I get the benefit of 4 day weekends on holidays, however to make up for the 8 missed training hours we work an extra 2 hours a day the 4 days of the week we do work! So we will be out in the training area at 0600, the Army joins us at 0700 and leave at 1700 and we press on until 1800! But I wouldn't trade AF for Army if they paid me!!
-
The problem is contractors and private security firms aren't going to police themselves. Especially when money is involved. Basically, we just made these people not accountable for their actions and gave them the legal ability to abuse anything they want to make a buck.
The Military is different of course, because they are accountable to the Government and operate with a high level of decency overall with very few exceptions.
If it works like the military SOFA, then the Iraqi police will do the policing. They will make arrests if someone is doing wrong, but then they will turn them over to the US. But I'm not sure
-
Decker if they're not inviting foreign investors then who gets the PSAs?
Before the invasion, the entire country, including its oil and infrastructure, was controlled by one man. The Iraqi people didn't control anything before the war. It was one man who pillaged and plundered . . . and kept about a billion dollars under his mattress.
It wasn't just the US/UK. There is a multinational force in Iraq.
We helped set up rules for a country that had none and made it easier for that country to attract investors to rebuild a country that was destroyed by a brutal dictator.
PSA is synonymous with privatization. The US forced Iraq to privatize its infrastructure.
I must state it again:
By what right does the US/UK have to dictate to Iraq how it should handle its own assets/infrastructure?
-
PSA is synonymous with privatization. The US forced Iraq to privatize its infrastructure.
I must state it again:
By what right does the US/UK have to dictate to Iraq how it should handle its own assets/infrastructure?
The fact Iraq didn't have a government, didn't have rules, apparently didn't the manpower or expertise to do this themselves, had deeply divided factions, and needed foreign involvement--including foreign money--to rebuild their country.
-
SOFA. Haven't heard that one in a while. Good analogy.
The Army has an acronym for everything. My favorite was ADONSA days. :)
I don't think it's a good analogy at all. Why should Iraq have to surrender the sovereignty of its own constitution to US demands? Remember, the provisions that we are looking at were handed down by Bremer when he was in charge of Iraq and those provisions were automatically written into the Iraqi constitution. No debate. No Iraqi input.
It certainly looks like the US is stacking the capitalist/legal deck in its favor while necessarily diminishing Iraqi concerns.
-
The fact Iraq didn't have a government, didn't have rules, apparently didn't the manpower or expertise to do this themselves, had deeply divided factions, and needed foreign involvement--including foreign money--to rebuild their country.
Why didn't Iraq have a government and why did Iraq have to rebuild?
-
Being stationed at an Army post I get the benefit of 4 day weekends on holidays, however to make up for the 8 missed training hours we work an extra 2 hours a day the 4 days of the week we do work! So we will be out in the training area at 0600, the Army joins us at 0700 and leave at 1700 and we press on until 1800! But I wouldn't trade AF for Army if they paid me!!
PT at 0600. I miss those days. . . .
-
Why didn't Iraq have a government and why did Iraq have to rebuild?
Because a brutal and evil dictator controlled their country for years, horded/stole the country's resources, and lived in numerous palaces like a king (which he was), while various segments of his people lived like cavemen.
-
PSA is synonymous with privatization. The US forced Iraq to privatize its infrastructure.
I must state it again:
By what right does the US/UK have to dictate to Iraq how it should handle its own assets/infrastructure?
what does the A in PSA stand for?
-
Because a brutal and evil dictator controlled their country for years, horded/stole the country's resources, and lived in numerous palaces like a king (which he was), while various segments of his people lived like cavemen.
Wrong answer.
Like it or not, that's how Iraq was under Hussein. And there's not a damn thing we could have done about it.
President Bush wanted to invade Iraq. For what reason, I don't know.
Congress has never declared war on Iraq.
Bush sought Congressional authority to invade Iraq b/c he conflated Iraq with the attacks of 9/11.
So far, so good.
But Bush couldn't attack Iraq b/c, under the holdings of the Nuremberg Trials, generally you can only use force in self-defense, defense of an ally, or imminent attack.
Iraq did not attack the US. Iraq attacked no one.
That is why Bush asked the UN to permit the US to enforce resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War. Remember the deplorable presentation by Powell w/ Tenet flanking him?
The current resolution governing Iraq's WMD inspections was Res. 1441 which clearly stated that if WMDs are discovered during inspections, the UN Security Council will convene to authorize a use of force.
The WMD inspectors were turning up nothing. Bush saw his only legal course for attacking Iraq go up in smoke. So he ordered the attack before the inspectors could finish their jobs.
That order was in violation of Res. 1441 and thus illegal.
Like some mafia hood, the US rolled into Iraq, capped the owner, and set up shop most advantageous to itself.
Or I could be wrong. But I'm not.
-
what does the A in PSA stand for?
Production sharing agreement.
-
Wrong answer.
Like it or not, that's how Iraq was under Hussein. And there's not a damn thing we could have done about it.
President Bush wanted to invade Iraq. For what reason, I don't know.
Congress has never declared war on Iraq.
Bush sought Congressional authority to invade Iraq b/c he conflated Iraq with the attacks of 9/11.
So far, so good.
But Bush couldn't attack Iraq b/c, under the holdings of the Nuremberg Trials, generally you can only use force in self-defense, defense of an ally, or imminent attack.
Iraq did not attack the US. Iraq attacked no one.
That is why Bush asked the UN to permit the US to enforce resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War. Remember the deplorable presentation by Powell w/ Tenet flanking him?
The current resolution governing Iraq's WMD inspections was Res. 1441 which clearly stated that if WMDs are discovered during inspections, the UN Security Council will convene to authorize a use of force.
The WMD inspectors were turning up nothing. Bush saw his only legal course for attacking Iraq go up in smoke. So he ordered the attack before the inspectors could finish their jobs.
That order was in violation of Res. 1441 and thus illegal.
Like some mafia hood, the US rolled into Iraq, capped the owner, and set up shop most advantageous to itself.
Or I could be wrong. But I'm not.
Biggest dog on the porch....if you don't like it I hear Canada is looking for more residents
-
Wrong answer.
Like it or not, that's how Iraq was under Hussein. And there's not a damn thing we could have done about it.
President Bush wanted to invade Iraq. For what reason, I don't know.
Congress has never declared war on Iraq.
Bush sought Congressional authority to invade Iraq b/c he conflated Iraq with the attacks of 9/11.
So far, so good.
But Bush couldn't attack Iraq b/c, under the holdings of the Nuremberg Trials, generally you can only use force in self-defense, defense of an ally, or imminent attack.
Iraq did not attack the US. Iraq attacked no one.
That is why Bush asked the UN to permit the US to enforce resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War. Remember the deplorable presentation by Powell w/ Tenet flanking him?
The current resolution governing Iraq's WMD inspections was Res. 1441 which clearly stated that if WMDs are discovered during inspections, the UN Security Council will convene to authorize a use of force.
The WMD inspectors were turning up nothing. Bush saw his only legal course for attacking Iraq go up in smoke. So he ordered the attack before the inspectors could finish their jobs.
That order was in violation of Res. 1441 and thus illegal.
Like some mafia hood, the US rolled into Iraq, capped the owner, and set up shop most advantageous to itself.
Or I could be wrong. But I'm not.
I figured you wouldn't like that answer. :) But it's the truth.
You didn't mention the two Congressional resolutions supporting the war after it started. They were either unanimous or nearly unanimous from what I recall.
-
Production sharing agreement.
Agreement? hmmmm Odd, I'll have to look up the term agreement, but I thought that was when two parties were agreeing?
-
Biggest dog on the porch....if you don't like it I hear Canada is looking for more residents
Are we a country of laws or not?
Are you asking me to move out of the US b/c I have shown you a very ugly and unconstitutional aspect of our current diseased executive administration?
Or don't you like me?
-
Agreement? hmmmm Odd, I'll have to look up the term agreement, but I thought that was when two parties were agreeing?
While you are at it, you should look up and see if the Iraq people agreed to those terms and ratified them or were they sold down the river by Awaiia or who ever.
-
I figured you wouldn't like that answer. :) But it's the truth.
You didn't mention the two Congressional resolutions supporting the war after it started. They were either unanimous or nearly unanimous from what I recall.
I didn't mention them because they are irrelevant to whether Bush followed the terms of Res. 1441 for legal use of force in disarming Iraq.
-
Agreement? hmmmm Odd, I'll have to look up the term agreement, but I thought that was when two parties were agreeing?
You are correct.
Sometimes language is deceptive. Especially with propaganda. Do the facts on the ground match up with the terminology designating such; not in this case.
-
You are correct.
Sometimes language is deceptive. Especially with propaganda. Do the facts on the ground match up with the terminology designating such; not in this case.
So NO ONE from Iraq signed these agreements?
-
So NO ONE from Iraq signed these agreements?
You are playing with semantics.
-
You are playing with semantics.
Bull shit I'm playing with semantics....in all your research I'm sure you can show who from Iraq signed this agreement. I mean someone had to.
-
Bull shit I'm playing with semantics....in all your research I'm sure you can show who from Iraq signed this agreement. I mean someone had to.
We know the players in the game but PSAs are generally locked under confidentiality provsions. That means it's a secret as to who is actually signing.
-
We know the players in the game but PSAs are generally locked under confidentiality provsions. That means it's a secret as to who is actually signing.
But someone from the Iraq government probably put pen to paper right?
-
But someone from the Iraq government probably put pen to paper right?
As a matter of law created by US consul Bremer, the Iraqis MUST privatize their infrastructure including oil fields.
I don't see any discretion there do you?
Say Luca Brasi held a gun to a bandleader's head to compel him to sign a contract releasing Johnny Fontaine from his binding contract.
Is that contract fairly bargained for? Is it how business is generally conducted in the legitimate business world?
-
As a matter of law created by US consul Bremer, the Iraqis MUST privatize their infrastructure including oil fields.
I don't see any discretion there do you?
Say Luca Brasi held a gun to a bandleader's head to compel him to sign a contract releasing Johnny Fontaine from his binding contract.
Is that contract fairly bargained for? Is it how business is generally conducted in the legitimate business world?
Oh see I didn't understand...Bremmer walked in to the room, held a gun to the head of the Iraqi and made him sign it. That is completely different. I mean there is no chance that the Iraqis were willing to sign a PSA out of graditude for saving thier ass....thanks for clearing that up
-
Oh see I didn't understand...Bremmer walked in to the room, held a gun to the head of the Iraqi and made him sign it. That is completely different. I mean there is no chance that the Iraqis were willing to sign a PSA out of graditude for saving thier ass....thanks for clearing that up
I'm sorry, you're right. Let me restate that.
The directives compelling the Iraqi gov. to privatize its national resources were automatically codified into the Iraqi constitution.
The Iraqis are legally bound to privatize Iraqi oil. There's no discretion in the matter for them.
-
I'm sorry, you're right. Let me restate that.
The directives compelling the Iraqi gov. to privatize its national resources were automatically codified into the Iraqi constitution.
The Iraqis are legally bound to privatize Iraqi oil. There's no discretion in the matter for them.
So it is your opinion that Paul Bremmer, sat in a room surrounded by Americans and drafted the constitution. The Iraqis had no input in it at all. And then when the proposed constitution was brought before the elected government of Iraq...they blindly accepted.
-
So it is your opinion that Paul Bremmer, sat in a room surrounded by Americans and drafted the constitution. The Iraqis had no input in it at all. And then when the proposed constitution was brought before the elected government of Iraq...they blindly accepted.
I think you're point is more accurate. They did it out of gratitude. Signing over your natural resources, the thing that makes your country viable shows a great deal of gratitude. They obviously appreciate all that was done for them and they wanted to give something back.
-
So it is your opinion that Paul Bremmer, sat in a room surrounded by Americans and drafted the constitution. The Iraqis had no input in it at all. And then when the proposed constitution was brought before the elected government of Iraq...they blindly accepted.
Not the constitution. The first thing the americans did was to rewrite Iraqi property laws to mandate privatization. Those directives from Bremer became part of the Iraqi constitution as a matter of law.
And the Iraqis worked from that premise in competing their constitution.
-
Fellas, this is a fucked deal for the Iraqis, it's not about saying thank you.
-
I think you're point is more accurate. They did it out of gratitude. Signing over your natural resources, the thing that makes your country viable shows a great deal of gratitude. They obviously appreciate all that was done for them and they wanted to give something back.
I would not engage in such speculation. Do you think the 60,000 dead civilians would be grateful for the illegal invasion and plunder of their country?
-
I would not engage in such speculation. Do you think the 60,000 dead civilians would be grateful for the illegal invasion and plunder of their country?
My post was pure sarcasm. Clearly I didn't lay it on thick enough.
Of course I don't think they signed away the only thing that makes their entire country viable because of gratitude. Without Oil Iraq is nothing but sand.
-
My post was pure sarcasm. Clearly I didn't lay it on thick enough.
Of course I don't think they signed away the only thing that makes their entire country viable because of gratitude. Without Oil Iraq is nothing but sand.
Don't forget a population of people who love this "democracy of getting ass fucked out of their resources" and the 2000 people who hate freedom.
-
My post was pure sarcasm. Clearly I didn't lay it on thick enough.
Of course I don't think they signed away the only thing that makes their entire country viable because of gratitude. Without Oil Iraq is nothing but sand.
I'm sorry but I'm new here. I now see that it's time for me to go home. That was a pretty good post too. Sorry I undercut it.
-
My post was pure sarcasm. Clearly I didn't lay it on thick enough.
Of course I don't think they signed away the only thing that makes their entire country viable because of gratitude. Without Oil Iraq is nothing but sand.
right, and the PSAs don't give any oil rights to the iraqis...fag
-
right, and the PSAs don't give any oil rights to the iraqis...fag
That's "fucking fag" to you Mister.
-
That's "fucking fag" to you Mister.
That would imply you get were getting action...we all know that isn't happening
-
That would imply you get were getting action...we all know that isn't happening
That's true for the last week at least, the gf is in Fort Myers, Florida but her flight lands at 9:14 tonight so in about 7 hours that will no longer be accurate.
Of course that doesn't change the main point, namely that you think the Iraqi's signed over control of their only natural resource and the one thing that makes the country viable out of gratitude.
-
That's true for the last week at least, the gf is in Fort Myers, Florida but her flight lands at 9:14 tonight so in about 7 hours that will no longer be accurate.
Of course that doesn't change the main point, namely that you think the Iraqi's signed over control of their only natural resource and the one thing that makes the country viable out of gratitude.
GET YA SOME DOG!!!! lol
the Iraqis are still benefitting, and like I have said, before these PSAs they got ZERO. They will be getting something now so gratitude isn't that far fetched