No Foolestroupe,

It has a lot to do with knocking idiotic myths, half truths and unsubstantiated garbage on the head.

In your post of 25 Nov 05 - 06:53 AM you attempt to explain on behalf of Carol why the US wants to control Iraq's oil, evading completely the question asked which was how they were going to do that.

Then we got CarolC's group of evil, mastermind, think-tankers, who were hell bent on cornering the worlds oil reserves all in the cause of their own lust for power.

You've got Boab at one minute stating categorically that a Tory Government will definately increase UK troop levels in Iraq when in actual fact their numbers are reducing and have been so since cessation of hostilities. When asked to provide reasons for this, give the man his due, he does admit that he has no idea.

Dianavan insisting that because oil infrastructure is targeted by the insurgents it must belong to the someone other than the Iraqi's - Hey Dianavan most insurgent attacks are against Iraqi civilians, so why should they treat lumps of steel and concrete any different.

Now when it is pointed out to her that Iraqi Oil belongs to Iraq, as does the infrasructure, we get CarolC incorrectly identifying companies that in the scheme of things under which the oil and gas industry operates world wide they could only at most have a licence to Operate those facilities on behalf of the government.

Dianavan then picks up on an article about PSA's hinting that all those wicked UK and US Oil Companies are going to rush in and force Iraq to sign away their oil in 30 year deals. Incorrect Dianavan that is an option and not something that is new, the term is 23 years, the winner of the PSA gets to keep 75% of the revenue, and the only ones to have ever been signed in Iraq were signed during Saddam Hussein's reign of Terror and the lucky winners were - Guess who - French and Russian Companies.