|
Retro Fit
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2008, 07:08:07 AM » |
|
In light of what Saddam did upon his exit from Kuwait, does it make sense to do that?
Yes or no question... Yes....Now heres one for you...Yes or no...Would we be building 14 permenant U.S. bases there or be building a U.S. embassy there that is larger then the Vatican if we were ever planning on leaving? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2008, 07:12:43 AM » |
|
Some of what Mars dosen't want you to know; A Framework for Occupation
In a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing last month, State Department Iraq Coordinator David Satterfield revealed the Declaration of Principles proposals have now been divided into a binding Status of Forces Agreement (on military involvement) and a nonbinding Strategic Framework Agreement (on economic and diplomatic relations). Neither would be submitted for the consent of Congress. Satterfield emphasized that, it could solidify changes the US has already made to Iraq's economic landscape - and pave the way for increased US control over Iraq's oil in years to come, according to Antonia Juhasz, a fellow at Oil Change International.
"A lot of frameworks for foreign investment were set up under [former Director of Iraq Reconstruction L. Paul] Bremer, and are already in place," Juhasz told Truthout. "A bilateral agreement would lock all that in and also place pressure on the government to pass the domestic oil law, to settle access for foreign companies to Iraq's oil underground."
Since the early days of the occupation, the US has never kept its oil execs far from Iraq's oil. The oil fields, as well as the Oil Ministry in Baghdad, were some of the only places American soldiers guarded throughout the initial invasion. Paul notes that US "advisers" presided over the drafting of the latest version of the oil law. http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/81573/?page=entire Nothing to do with oil Ron Mars?? Methinks thou dost screech too much... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 07:15:05 AM by freethinker »
|
Logged
|
Impeach now more than ever!
|
|
|
|
neue regel
|
|
« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2008, 07:13:33 AM » |
|
I have no doubt we are looking to set up shop in Iraq which puts us on the doorstep of Iran. I have no doubt that is part of the overall strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +197/-193
Posts: 3,567
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #18 on: April 14, 2008, 07:42:11 AM » |
|
Ron, in the future, try and get all your posts into one. You can add muliple quotes in the "Quick Reply" box by putting your cursor where you want it and hitting the "Quote" link above any post you want to quote. If you use the actual "Reply" feature you can scroll down to the post you want to quote and hit the "Insert Quote" link. You can always edit that post from there. It's just it keeps us from scrolling, saves you time, and allows for the pages to load faster. Thanks. As for the topic: I personally don't see how this proves anything, really. If anything it only strengthens the argument. I think the more compelling argument would be who these contracts go to in the end... not who gets a chance to bid on them. The Iraqi leadership is protected by US troops, so an unfavorable bias toward US intrests wouldn't be surprising. Yes....Now heres one for you...Yes or no...Would we be building 14 permenant U.S. bases there or be building a U.S. embassy there that is larger then the Vatican if we were ever planning on leaving? I'm sorry... but can you explain what this has to do with oil contracts? Unless your only point was that Iraq will always be under the influence of American intrests... but I thought we established that already? And freethinker, the economic "Strategic Framework Agreement" is non-binding... I think that's whorth emphasizing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
Retro Fit
|
|
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2008, 08:11:50 AM » |
|
Abraxas, Lets critique this statement of yours: I personally don't see how this proves anything, really. If anything it only strengthens the argument. I think the more compelling argument would be who these contracts go to in the end... not who gets a chance to bid on them. The Iraqi leadership is protected by US troops, so an unfavorable bias toward US intrests wouldn't be surprising.
You start off with this: I personally don't see how this proves anything, really. If anything it only strengthens the argument. The argument being whether Iraq really control's it's own oil. Then you say: I think the more compelling argument would be who these contracts go to in the end . So you think "who gets the contract" is more important then who controls the oil? Think before you post. And then, you concede that the U.S. is in control with this statement: the Iraqi leadership is protected by US troops, so an unfavorable bias toward US intrests wouldn't be surprising. replace the word "protected" with the word "controlled". I'm missing the point to your post. I'm sorry... but can you explain what this has to do with oil contracts?
Unless your only point was that Iraq will always be under the influence of American intrests... but I thought we established that already? The point is that regardless of who gets the contracts, the Iraqis aren't in control of the oil. We occupy their country..to the victor goes the spoils...We are way past "infuence of American interests". But forgive me , had we already established that?...hummm? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 08:23:46 AM by Retro Fit »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
freethinker
|
|
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2008, 12:17:58 PM » |
|
Where did all that Iraqi oil money go?? After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the United States took control of all of the Iraqi government’s bank accounts, including the income from oil sales. The United Nations approved the financial takeover, and President Bush vowed to spend Iraq’s money wisely. But now critics are raising serious questions about how well the United States handled billions of dollars in Iraqi oil funds.
Iraq's oil resources generate billions of dollars — money the United States promised to protect after overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
Now, Frank Willis, a former senior American official in Iraq, tells NBC News the United States failed to safeguard the oil money known as the Development Fund for Iraq.
There was, in my mind, pervasive leakage in assets of Iraq, and to some extent, those assets were squandered," says Willis. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6621523/ Speaking of squandering; Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in early 2003, top Bush administration officials suggested some war costs could be financed through Iraqi oil revenues. That never occurred and U.S. taxpayers have instead seen about a half-trillion dollars of their money spent on the war so far.
In the meantime, there are estimates that Iraq has up to $30 billion in assets invested in U.S. financial institutions. http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN04467762 More bush administration lies ...Apparently they aren't even trying to use Iraqi oil money to finance the infrastucture of Iraq ...they are given a free ride on the back of America tax payers. Paul Wolfowitz, one of the neocon architects of the U.S. war in Iraq, said a week after the invasion was launched that tens of billions of dollars would be quickly available from Iraq's oil wells to rebuild the country.
"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon," he said in 2003.
Chalk up another Bush administration plan for Iraq that succumbed to reality. The war drags on, Iraq oil production has been nowhere near projected levels, in part due to terrorist attacks on equipment and pipelines, and, worst of all, while the United States has poured $50 billion into Iraqi infrastructure, nobody seems sure where the oil money -- whatever there is -- has been going. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 12:46:29 PM by freethinker »
|
Logged
|
Impeach now more than ever!
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +197/-193
Posts: 3,567
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2008, 04:55:32 PM » |
|
The argument being whether Iraq really control's it's own oil.
...
So you think "who gets the contract" is more important then who controls the oil? Think before you post. Now I know this may be hard for you to comprehend... but don't you think who gets the contracts may be a slight indication of who controls it? I mean, if it all goes to China and Russia, what good did the war do? If it all goes to American companies, well, then, it might be whorth looking into. And then, you concede that the U.S. is in control with this statement. In control of what? What I really said was that Iraqi politicians have an invested intrest in our troops. replace the word "protected" with the word "controlled". No. These politicians could do several other things. They could ally with Al Sadr. They could break away from Parliment. They have just as much control over the situation as we do... I'm missing the point to your post. I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you... The point is that regardless of who gets the contracts, the Iraqis aren't in control of the oil. We occupy their country..to the victor goes the spoils...We are way past "infuence of American interests". But forgive me , had we already established that?...hummm? What's the point in "controlling the oil" if none of it goes to us? Maybe you could better explain your conclusion... cause right now, it doesn't make sense unless we get the oil... which is why it's important to see what happens during and after the coming bidding war. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
Pond Scum
|
|
« Reply #22 on: April 14, 2008, 06:17:33 PM » |
|
The World Plutocracy Part I: Oil Rulers http://www.new-enlightenment.com/oilrulers1.htmOIL and the Middle East Context of 'December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas' http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a120497texasvisitIS WORLD OIL PRODUCTION PEAKING? http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2007/Update67.htmGeopolitics At $100 A Barrel http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/13/AR2007111301830.htmlMORE........ http://www.angelfire.com/ab/trogl/oilwar/http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htmhttp://www.oilempire.us/iraqoil.htmlIn other news from Iran, the country announced this week the discovery of one of the largest oilfields in the world. Some 38 billion barrels of oil are believed to be in the oilfield found in southern Iran making it one of the most lucrative oil finds in years. Iran says they are looking for foreign companies to invest in the oilfield. It will be a tempting deal even for U.S. companies that are barred from dealing with Iran. Recent news reports indicate that the subsidiaries of several American companies have been quietly trading with Iran for years. These companies include Halliburton, GE and Conoco. According to Money Magazine, in 1997 when Vice President Dick Cheney was Halliburton’s CEO, the company paid $15,000 fine for improperly shipping oil field equipment to Iran. http://www.democracynow.org/2003/7/16/trading_with_the_enemy_halliburton_geFor that reason San Remo was to be a private affair, a matter between those countries, Britain and France, with rich histories in colonial intrigue. Shut out was the nation for which the first world war represented the end of isolationist innocence. A relative novice at the imperial game, the U.S. would have lost the war's most valuable prize were it not for a man named A.C. Bedford. He was neither diplomat nor politician, but the chairman of what was then known as Standard Oil of New Jersey. And when the British and French concluded the deal at San Remo that divided between them the entire future output of Middle Eastern oil, Bedford intervened. He got a copy of the agreement from a friend in the French delegation and passed it on to the State Department in Washington. Alarmed at what had happened, the U.S. quickly became a player in the Middle East. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2002/11/25/332586/index.htm(CBS) Did it ever occur to you that when President Bush says, "Money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations," he's talking about your money -- and every other American's money? Just about everyone with a 401(k) pension plan or mutual fund has money invested in companies that are doing business in so-called rogue states. In other words, there are U.S. companies that are helping drive the economies of countries like Iran, Syria and Libya, all places that have sponsored terrorists. Correspondent Lesley Stahl reported on this story last January. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/60minutes/main595214.shtml///////////// I could go on and on, but many people only believe what they want to believe. We had Alan Greenspan admit the war was largely about oil, yet still there are people who refuse to believe the truth, even when it is admitted. The truth is not that difficult to find, you just have to be willing to do a little work. Of course "work" is a 4 letter to word to some people. Anyone who believes the Iraq war has little to do with oil is not capable of logical thought, reason, or common sense. People like this are the enemy of truth. They are so ignorant, so buried in denial, they can't recognize the truth even when ti is obvious to ANY THINKING PERSON. Even when it is ADMITTED by the former chairman of the Federal Reserve. Ignorance is bliss and the OP is one of the most blissful people on EARTH. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 14, 2008, 06:29:46 PM by Pond Scum »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pond Scum
|
|
« Reply #23 on: April 15, 2008, 10:34:07 AM » |
|
Iraq is about securing a future source of oil that can be protected. With peak oil looming and huge worldwide increases in the demand for oil, it is COMMON SENSE that the US needs to have access to a large quantity of oil which can be protected. Our economy is totally dependent on oil. We need to know that no country can cut off our supply to oil in the future.
I am truly amazed how people try to claim the war in Iraq is not about oil because we haven't just stolen the oil. It is not about stealing oil, it is about ASSURING A FUTURE SUPPLY OF OIL UNDER OUR PROTECTION.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2008, 06:44:02 PM » |
|
Just a heads up, Ron. But the very first thing our troops did, just as soon as the USAF was finished decimating Iraq's infrastructure and killing or maiming tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians....the very first thing we did was secure the oil fields. Documented fact.
Here's another one.....We still control and "provide security" for all Iraqi oil Fields. Black marketing in oil is estimated at hundreds of thousands barrels , stolen or disappeared. These indisputable facts do not support most of your contention's. In a nutshell, Ron. I don't just think your full of crap, I'm absolutely positive of it.
No heads up needed. The first thing secured was Iraq's southern oil fields so he couldn't demolish them as he did in GWI. The second thing we did was continue on to Baghdad leaving the oil fields to the Iraqi Government. They continue to decide what's to be done with them five years later. Nice try though. The only thing full of crap is your argument we went into Iraq for their oil. Nothing we have done even suggests that. Providing security and ensuring Saddam didn't blow up oil well heads early on in OIF in no way suggests we are controlling Iraq's oil or ever had any intention of doing so. What nonsense!! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
Ron Mars
|
|
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2008, 06:53:38 PM » |
|
Iraq is about securing a future source of oil that can be protected. With peak oil looming and huge worldwide increases in the demand for oil, it is COMMON SENSE that the US needs to have access to a large quantity of oil which can be protected. Our economy is totally dependent on oil. We need to know that no country can cut off our supply to oil in the future.
I am truly amazed how people try to claim the war in Iraq is not about oil because we haven't just stolen the oil. It is not about stealing oil, it is about ASSURING A FUTURE SUPPLY OF OIL UNDER OUR PROTECTION.
None of this has any meaning when you realize the US isn't determining what happens to Iraq's oil. The only way for any of yours and others opinions here to have any validity is if the US was filling tankers with Iraqi oil and dictating what happens to their oil exports. We know, and have known for some time, the US isn't doing that. The fact that the Iraqi's are making those decisions completely destroys the "War For Oil" lies Democrats, liberals and the authors of your links have been telling for the last five years. It's time to fess up and admit that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The national security of the United States can never be left in the hands of liberals.
|
|
|
|
gommi
|
|
« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2008, 07:10:29 PM » |
|
It doesn't matter what you see or don't see. All we have heard is that the US went to war for Iraqi oil. That has always been a lie.
The fact is that Iraq has always decided the question of their natural resources. Who they offer oil contracts to is their decision. Before the American invasion, Iraq's oil industries were nationally owned by Saddam's government. After the defeat of Saddam however, the country's oil resources were made available to the international market. Therefore it can be argued that the Iraq war, at least to a certain extent, was motivated by oil interests. The American government used force to impose free markets and free trade. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
__Committed IAPer since 2004__
|
|
|
|
FreeinTX
|
|
« Reply #27 on: April 18, 2008, 07:38:56 PM » |
|
How does this mean the war is not about oil? Even if European or Asian companies get most of the contracts there's still room to say the war is about oil and we screwed up.
This article says 85 companies were barred from bidding unless the Iraqi's 'update their information' I read that as a request for a bribe.
Just can't admit it can you? No matter what you will cling to the "War For Oil" hoax. " Even if European or Asian companies get most of the contracts"... that would mean the US did not go into Iraq for their oil. If we had then all of those "War For Oil" contracts would be going to US companies without Iraqi involvement or approval. As I have stated before, the Iraqi's are determining what happens to their oil resources. Not the Bush Administration. Get over it liberals, you've been fooled once again by people who don't think you are smart enough to figure it out yourselves. In most cases they are right. Few here or elsewhere will now admit they have been duped. Simply pathetic. Ron, good God, have you missed the point? It was NEVER "war for oil" to make America or Americans rich or to benefit US interests. While I don't believe the invasion into Iraq was just about the oil, I certainly do understand that it was NEVER for America or American interests. These people are GLOBALISTS. MULTI-NATIONAL Corporations are getting FREE US military and MULTI-NATIONAL Corporate military protection for their oil lines. But it is our American troops are killed, and the American taxpayers get billed for it all. How much of that Iraqi oil has gone to reimburse the USofA for their military and private contractor protection of those oil lines? And as for Iraqi input into the bidding process, yea right. How many times do you think the Iraqi government has heard "Do this or we are outta here?" They did when it came to Mosantos. They did when it came to their market trading system. Their banking rules. Their oil revenues. The oil privatization which is oppsed by the majority of the Iraqi btw. Look, after the Cold War ended, America was enjoying their PEACE dividend. Remember? Contractors like Haliburton, KBR, and Carlyle Group (and the Ben Laden group) were seeing a deflation in profits and fewer numbers of upcoming contracts. The guys over at PNAC (Project for the New American Century) said if we DESTABILIZE the Middle East, the US would allow Bush to increase their defense budget by 6 to 10 times the Clinton defense budget. In order to destabilize the Middle East the US would invade Iraq, and use permanent bases built in Iraq as springboards into Iran and Syria, looking down-line to coutries like Lybia, Turkey, Jordan, and others. However, in order to do that, THEY said that the US would need to suffer another "Pearl Harbor" event to enrage the American people into entering into another war. On 9/10 Bush signed the order to invade Afganistan, and the next day, by miracle, 9/11 happened, and Bush used the War on Terror, links to Al CIA'da and Mushroom Cloud making WMD's to invade Iraq and set the PNAC plan into action. And once just a few of those bases got built we are now talking about hitting Iran, which I'm sure you also support. The budgets increased as planned. Why did they want to do that? Greed!!! Not American corporate greed. MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATE GREED!!! GREED that does NOTHING to benefit America, Americans, or American business. Halliburton is in Dubia now, not the US. It has little US interests anymore. The oil companies you mentioned all non-US, Nothing about Iraq does anything good for America, only gets Americans killed and the American taxpayer deeper in debt, which furthers devalues our dollar and bring our country closer to collapse and national emergencies that always follow economic collapse and nation-wide depression. If the War Against the Iraqi benefits any country, it's Israel. Same with Iran. A War Against Iran only serves to eliminate another of Israel's compitition in the Middle East like it eliminated Iraq. A destabilized Middle East keeps Israel as the BMOC and allows them to continue to holocaust the Palistinians. I bet you support that too, right Ron? And as far as it being a R vs. D thing. Which D candidate wants to bring our troops home? HITLERY Clinton is only sure to continue where Bush left off. And if by some chance I'm wrong and Obama beats her in the primary election, I doubt he will be any different considering his foreign affairs advisor is Zignew Brezinski, former head of the CFR, and it is the policy of the CFR to destabilize the Middle East to usher in a New World Order of Global Governance. FreeinTX |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
