shropshire 0 #1 November 22, 2005 Iraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their country if an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year. clicky Good job it wasn't all about the oil then . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #2 November 22, 2005 Lets face it , the Americans and the Brits are kinda good at this sort of work. "The Iraqi government has announced plans to seek foreign investment to exploit its oil reserves " Who would you rather have developing and reconstructing this valuable asset after decades of neglect and sabotage? The lowest bidder?-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #3 November 22, 2005 QuoteGood job it wasn't all about the oil then yes...this proves that that was the goal all along. QuoteIraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their country yeah...and you could save up to $8000 on your car insurance by switching to geico, although you might not save a penny."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #4 November 22, 2005 Further info is here: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=417&row=0 QuoteNew plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favored by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004, Harper's discovered, under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas. Former US Secretary of State Baker is now an attorney. His law firm, Baker Botts, is representing ExxonMobil and the Saudi Arabian government. Up until now I though the idea that Iraq was invaded because of oil was merely conspiracy theory. Now I'm not so sure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rickjump1 0 #5 November 22, 2005 QuoteIraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their country if an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year. clicky Good job it wasn't all about the oil then . The Brits and the US would do the best job, and after they have been compensated or before, the government could nationalize the whole oil industry. Maybe this is a little more complicated....Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 November 22, 2005 QuoteIraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their country if an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year. Though to be fair, in the past the Iraqis lost that wealth to Hussein. In general, the oil in the middle east has been good to the power structure, and not to the vast majority of the people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildcard451 0 #7 November 22, 2005 Sweet, time for cheaper gas again... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,435 #8 November 22, 2005 >Up until now I though the idea that Iraq was invaded because of >oil was merely conspiracy theory. The right wingers are certain the invasion was all about freeing the people of Iraq, or finding WMD's, or stopping Saddam Hussein, or stopping terrorism, or pick your favorite cause du jour. The democrats think it was all about the oil. I think both sides are wrong. I think the only people more wrong than the people who think "it was all about the oil" are the people who think "it had absolutely nothing to do with oil." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #9 November 22, 2005 O MY GOD!! Yeah, whatever we do, let's NOT invest ANY money in helping to restore Iraq's oil production facilities. If some of the oil productiton facilities are damaged, let's just leave them that way. We shouldn't try to put ANY money into fixing them, because then people will say the war was all about oil. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #10 November 22, 2005 yeah, I agree with what bill said. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #11 November 22, 2005 When we first invaded Iraq, the idea that our interest in their oil was part of our motive was dismissed as ridiculous. But now that some time has passed, a lot of people have died, our timeline has changed, and the reasons and motives for our invasion have become distorted, it's much easier to justify why we now have an interest in their oil. If our stance shifts slightly from time-to-time, it's easy to do a smooth 180. If one's slick, he might even get the masses to go along with that line of thought.... linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #12 November 22, 2005 Bawwwwwwwwww - What a hoot. If you hade been invited into the country, then you might, just might have an argument but as you didn't you just bombed the crap out of the place for the past 12 years. The Iraqis are not even getting a choice you're dictating (again).... now, suddenly it's charity time - I just spat my gin and tonic all over my computer. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #13 November 22, 2005 hey, I didn't want this invasion in the first place. It doesn't matter. Where we are right now is what matters. The oil production facilities are damaged & need to be fixed. There's no secret conspiracy about this at all-this is just the way things are. For the record I think it sucks too, I just think it's lame when people think they're being insightful when they portray it as some big secret dramatic conspiracy. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #14 November 22, 2005 No PA intended - I didn't mean you as in you and I believe that <> but what I do believe is that this profiteering by the bucket load.... (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #15 November 22, 2005 you have a point re. profiteering. whoever comes in to fix these facilities sure as hell isn't gonna do it for charity. They'll expect a return on their time & money & investment. Too bad UNICEF doesn't repair oil rigs. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #16 November 22, 2005 So, the work should be put out to competitive tender (open to all, not just the US/UK) and then it wouldn't appear to be Imperial action. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #17 November 22, 2005 QuoteWhen we first invaded Iraq, the idea that our interest in their oil was part of our motive was dismissed as ridiculous. Huh? I recall Bush's preinvasion speech where he told the Iraqis not to destroy the oil facilities. Wasn't very subtle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #18 November 22, 2005 Well, they said they were gonna open it up to foreign investors, not specifically US/UK After reading the article again, I guess the complaint is that the foreign investors are demanding an unfairly-high return on their investment, leaving less left over for Iraq. Since oil is a nationalized industry in Iraq, that would leave less profits left over for the Iraqi government to use. It seems to me that Iraq does need some foreign business investment to get back on its feet, and if I'm reading correctly, it doesnt matter so much whether the investors are UK/USA companies so much as it matters how much of the profits the foreigners are gonna take home for themselves vs how much they'll leave to the Iraqi owners. Remember that oil accounts for over 90% of Iraqi exports in $. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #19 November 22, 2005 QuoteHuh? I recall Bush's preinvasion speech where he told the Iraqis not to destroy the oil facilities. Wasn't very subtle. yep, & the Iraqis were ordered to mine the oil rigs/pipelines by Saddam.. So they put the bombs on there, but then didn't arm them. why? to obey Bush? No, the Iraqis didn't blow them up because they knew that oil was essential to their country, and would continue to be so after Saddam was overthrown. just because a course of action may profit the USA doesn't mean it wouldn't also profit Iraq. Iraq would have been completely fucked if they had obeyed Saddam. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #20 November 22, 2005 Quote......the foreign investors are demanding an unfairly-high return on their investment, leaving less left over for Iraq. ....... ala Oil for Food - they still think the program must be in place ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
