|
Please tell me it wasn't about oil in Iraq
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
For the record, most here know I never bought into this particular tin foil hat theory. Of course even Republicans and ardent Bush supporters would agree that it may have been a factor, but by no means would I have ever thought it to be a primary rationale.
I'm not so sure anymore. From the British Independent (yet another "shock" that this came from the Brit papers):
http://news.independent.co.uk/world...ticle328526.ece
| quote: | Iraq's oil: The spoils of war
By Philip Thornton, Economics Correspondent
Published: 22 November 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. A report produced by American and British pressure groups warns Iraq will be caught in an "old colonial trap" if it allows foreign companies to take a share of its vast energy reserves. The report is certain to reawaken fears that the real purpose of the 2003 war on Iraq was to ensure its oil came under Western control.
The Iraqi government has announced plans to seek foreign investment to exploit its oil reserves after the general election, which will be held next month. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proved oil reserves, the third largest in the world.
According to the report, from groups including War on Want and the New Economics Foundation (NEF), the new Iraqi constitution opened the way for greater foreign investment. Negotiations with oil companies are already under way ahead of next month's election and before legislation is passed, it said.
The groups said they had amassed details of high-level pressure from the US and UK governments on Iraq to look to foreign companies to rebuild its oil industry. It said a Foreign Office code of practice issued in summer last year said at least $4bn would be needed to restore production to the levels before the 1990-91 Gulf War. "Given Iraq's needs it is not realistic to cut government spending in other areas and Iraq would need to engage with the international oil companies to provide appropriate levels of foreign direct investment to do this," it said.
Yesterday's report said the use of production sharing agreements (PSAs) was proposed by the US State Department before the invasion and adopted by the Coalition Provisional Authority. "The current government is fast-tracking the process. It is already negotiating contracts with oil companies in parallel with the constitutional process, elections and passage of a Petroleum Law," the report, Crude Designs, said. |
The first thought is, why the do we think the Iraqis are completely incapable of doing this themselves? Why turn to foreign investors?
And then a lovely thought popped in my head:
Ahmed Chalabi.
The article continues:
| quote: | Earlier this year a BBC Newsnight report claimed to have uncovered documents showing the Bush administration made plans to secure Iraqi oil even before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the US. Based on its analysis of PSAs in seven countries, it said multinationals would seek rates of return on their investment from 42 to 162 per cent, far in excess of typical 12 per cent rates.
|
The article they're referring to here is this article, which I don't seem to recall being anywhere in the U.S. papers anywhere:
| quote: | The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.
In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".
"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.
Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.
An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.
Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.
Secret sell-off plan
The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.
The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Fadhil Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programm...ght/4354269.stm |
Umm, uh, what the ? Oh yeah, anyone else notice that last name appearing in that last paragraph? Shocking, I know.
Turning back to the Independent:
| quote: | | Taking an assumption of $40 a barrel, below the current price of almost $60, and a likely contract term of 25 to 40 years, it said that Iraq stood to lose between £74bn and $194bn. Andrew Simms, the NEF's policy director, said: "Over the last century, Britain and the US left a global trail of conflict, social upheaval and environmental damage as they sought to capture and control a disproportionate share of the world's oil reserves. Now it seems they are determined to increase their ecological debts at Iraq's expense. Instead of a new beginning, Iraq is caught in a very old colonial trap." |
Isn't our American government just grand? Ain't Bush such a "compassionate" conservative?
Why does Bush hate the Iraqis? Why is he essentially stealing their oil and money from them? And I thought all this time he was there to, uh, "liberate" them?
Interesting. |
|
|
| gabba420 |
| I always thought that America was there to liberate them, but not for free. It was going to be a costly liberation and America was not going to pick up the tap. Just let them borrow the money and when they are completly independent send them the bill. And how would a new country be able to pay America, well of course with black gold and lots of it. |
|
|
| Nick |
Using the word "does" as a general actions or actions.
When a country "does" something to another country it means,
"What am I gonna get out of this, how does this benefit me first" |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nick
Using the word "does" as a general actions or actions.
When a country "does" something to another country it means,
"What am I gonna get out of this, how does this benefit me first" |
that is what is called the harmony of interest. i'll do something for you and it'll mask my true intentions of what i'm getting when i do whatever. |
|
|
| Lover Boy |
How can I say this?
It was about oil. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| quote: | Originally posted by gabba420
I always thought that America was there to liberate them, but not for free. It was going to be a costly liberation and America was not going to pick up the tap. Just let them borrow the money and when they are completly independent send them the bill. And how would a new country be able to pay America, well of course with black gold and lots of it. |
So a while ago i blew my tire and while i was wating on the side of the road for a friend to bring me a new one a towtruck came by and just towed my car to the garage (without even asking me if i want that) where they changed the tire (without my approval), worked on the engine (which i didnt agree upon and the engine is now messed up) and repainted the car (i also said no to that and the car loks ugly now). After that they presented me with a bill for their hard work even though i didnt want any of this done to my car.
Now what would the appropriate payement for the guys hard work be? Obviously money is out of the question, maybe i should just pick up a wrench and beat the out of the guy, that sunds like a fair deal to me. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
Oil? What oil? The Iraqi's have oil? The second largest oil reserves in the world? Really? :eek: Man, and all this time I thought we had benevolent aims and objectives. :rolleyes:
Anybody who bought the officially stated reasons for "war" (more like a ing imperialist invasion) at any point (as the reasons/justifications have constantly changed) is a ing retard and it's about time he or she wakes up and smells the oil coffee.
Wow, I'm pretty pissed of rightnow, I wonder why... :rolleyes: |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| Yes and if you didn't know by now Salem Bin Laden (Osama's oldest brother) gave Bush his first financial start in the oil business. They were business partners in the 70's. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
So a while ago i blew my tire and while i was wating on the side of the road for a friend to bring me a new one a towtruck came by and just towed my car to the garage (without even asking me if i want that) where they changed the tire (without my approval), worked on the engine (which i didnt agree upon and the engine is now messed up) and repainted the car (i also said no to that and the car loks ugly now). After that they presented me with a bill for their hard work even though i didnt want any of this done to my car.
Now what would the appropriate payement for the guys hard work be? Obviously money is out of the question, maybe i should just pick up a wrench and beat the out of the guy, that sunds like a fair deal to me. |
:stongue: Nice analogy Moongoose. :haha: |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| Opus: It wasn't about oil in Iraq ;) |
|
|
| gabba420 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
So a while ago i blew my tire and while i was wating on the side of the road for a friend to bring me a new one a towtruck came by and just towed my car to the garage (without even asking me if i want that) where they changed the tire (without my approval), worked on the engine (which i didnt agree upon and the engine is now messed up) and repainted the car (i also said no to that and the car loks ugly now). After that they presented me with a bill for their hard work even though i didnt want any of this done to my car.
Now what would the appropriate payement for the guys hard work be? Obviously money is out of the question, maybe i should just pick up a wrench and beat the out of the guy, that sunds like a fair deal to me. |
Hence where in agreement. No one does anything for free or out the kindness of there hearth. There is always a price. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
| But are we also in agreement that the fair payement for this "charity" work would be an equivalent to rearaging the guys face with a wrench? |
|
|
|
|
