BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:20 PM

That's OK.

The old saying goes..

When you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME...

A fair bit of that goes on in the political threads here... :-)


Hahaha! my spell checker thought I meant 'polemical' for my mistype of 'political'... near enough!

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:11 PM

Thanks, Robin.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:04 PM

CarolC

My apologies.

That was a quote from 'The Bard', and in common everyday usage, has nothing to do with referring to ladies. In fact I was actually inspired by Mr T.

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 09:36 PM

( ...so what else is new?)

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 09:35 PM

Clearly you have not been reading my posts, robomatic.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 09:10 PM

CArolC:

I don't know if Foulestroupe was aiming that comment at you, but I think it was well taken as such. You post 'to win' and 'to have the last word' but you don't always seek to explain and enlighten. More than once in this thread you have insinuated with no facts. (And of course you are not unique in that respect).

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 09:08 PM

teribus says - "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."

He's referring to the Nov. 27th article in the Guardian which states, "In Iraq, an American-inspired deal to hand over development of oil reserves, the third largest in the world, to US and British companies is being rushed through by the oil minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi before next month's election."

Nobody is forcing Iraq to sign away development of their oil reserves. Chalabi is giving it away. Nobody is hinting about it either. Thats what is happening.

If you connect the dots, teribus, you will see that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with freedom or democracy. It had all to do with greed.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:59 PM

I'm going to answer my own question. This statement looks like it is aimed at me (since I'm the only "lady" who has posted a lot of information in this thread)...

I'm just a little nobody with no assets or influence, so when I express a personal opinion based on a wide ranging reading of many sources (apparently not all 'approved'), then I am told I am wrong, and heaps pf alleged facts that I have little means of following up are bombarded at me.

What makes you think anything I have posted in this thread has anything whatever to do with you? Methinks the (gentle?)man doth protest too much.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:35 PM

Foolestroup, whom are you addressing in your 29 Nov 05 - 08:01 PM post?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:19 PM

T-

Yeah, we had partners, or better put, contacts, in Kuwait... There were no formal partrnerships... The entire tregion is corrupt by American standards and good lieing is considered to be an "honorable trait"... Doesn't matter too much which Middle East county... Them folks all danged good liars... Yeah, the Kuwaiti's are prolly the best but the Saudi's ain't half bad either...

But as fir the 51%??? That is entirely false... All they wanted was their kickbacks... They didn't want to get entangled with leagl partnerships... Cramped their styles...

Plus, takes a lotta grease, kinda like Halliburton does with the US governemnt, to get the contracts... Lotta grease... We paid, oh God, over $100,000 to one family in Kuwait and they said, thanks, we got more from _________!!!

(Ahhhhh, can we have our 100 grand back???)

This was money up front to buy a deal and, ahhhh, I don't trust Kuwaitis no more...

Crooks. just like Halliburton..

BTW, T, ahh did you review the list of stuff the Halliburton is no-bid contratced to do fir us in Iraq that you think no-one else can do???

All looks like purdy easy stuff to me... No rocket surgery in there...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 08:01 PM

"When the facts aren't in your favour, confuse 'em with bullshit - the more the better." - the high school debating team - I was leader of one such team...

There is one absolute master (at least lots of people here have said that) of the technique of throwing heaps of text into a thread - and it is not Mr T.


'Methinks the Lady doth protest too much'

I'm just a little nobody with no assets or influence, so when I express a personal opinion based on a wide ranging reading of many sources (apparently not all 'approved'), then I am told I am wrong, and heaps pf alleged facts that I have little means of following up are bombarded at me.


And I shouldn't get suspicious?

:-)

I was leafing thru a Practical Mechanics the other day from about 2002 which showed satellite (hacked no doubt!!!) pictures of an oil pipeline being extended from Kuwait towards the border with Iraq.

Excuse me, I just have to blink...

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 06:30 PM

Teribus, you are entirely missing the point of my posts in this thread, and you are trying to lead me down blind alleys that have nothing whatever to do with anything I am saying about what's going on in Iraq.

I'm saying that there are competing interests, even among the people who supported the war in Iraq in the first place... some of them want us to stay (the oil interests, in particular), and some of them want us out, the sooner the better (the people who want the region Balkanized for reasons related to balance of power equations). These various people are working very hard to influence the US public to either support keeping US forces in Iraq, or to put pressure on the Bush administration to get US forces out of Iraq.

My reason for discussing this situation here in the Mudcat is that I don't think any of us (any of us who live, vote, and pay taxes here in the US) should necessarily take anyone's word at face value, even if they seem to be agreeing with whatever stance we took originally on the war. We ought to be looking behind their words and finding out what their real agenda is, and then we should find whatever solutions we can to best help the Iraqi people rather than allow ourselves to be used by people with hidden agendas.

The way to do this is not to throw around a bunch of fabricated "facts", but to look at who benefits the most from whatever decisions are made in Iraq and in the Middle East generally (and in the world generally). If hegemonic interests are the ones who benefit the most, it stands to reason that the ordinary citizens will be the ones who suffer the most, and benefit the least. I am against allowing that to happen for ethical and moral reasons, and for reasons of enlightened self-interest.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 06:11 PM

CarolC - 29 Nov 05 - 03:56 PM

Noted that in renouncing my identification of the Dome in question you pass on answering my question about how or why a small Canadian Company taken over by Amoco Canada in 1988, which in turn is taken over by BP in 1998, a take-over in which Amoco loses it's name but a Company they took over 10 years before doesn't?

Dome International on their web page actually announce that they have the work in Iraq. Now maybe just for once Bobert can help out here.

Now let's see Anadarko, Dome, and Vitol, a consortium of three small, independent, companies are awarded a contract to evaluate the 2-billion-barrel Suba-Luhais in southern Iraq.

This consortium consists of:
- Andarko who specialise in fractured reservoirs and enhanced oil recovery. Souther fields are in poor shape remember.
- Vitol SA Inc who are oil traders
- Dome Petroleum Services/Dome International ??????

Now let's ask Bobert whether or not he and his brother needed to have an Arab partner when he and his brother attempted their little business venture over in that part of the world a few years ago? Now from what I know about setting up shop in the Arabian Gulf area the answer is yes, you do have to have an Arab partner and that partner must hold 51% of the shares. Hence the essential presence of Dome International, or more importantly Dome Petroleum Services who are registered in Iraq.

Halliburton??? if you want to fill space referring to them fill your boots. To date the Iraqi's have not included them in contract awards or on tender lists. I did state my belief that who ever does get awarded those jobs quite large chunks will ultimately go to Halliburton or one of its subsidiary companies purely because that is the business that they are in. Particularly if drilling is involved - Halliburton owns Hughes and Baker Oil Tools - basically you can't drill without them - then there's the mud pumps compressors, all that sort of stuff. They do make a good living out of it, and counter to what Bobert claims they are rather good at it right across the board.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 05:42 PM

Doug, even if you don't provide a clicky there's nothing stopping you from 'copying and pasting' the page address of where you read something. It would make it much easir to find something. I googled for it but didn't find it.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 04:47 PM

Ummmm, it would seem that Joe Lieberman has been one of the loudest hawks in the Senate, Dougie...

Of course he's gonna see everything all hunky doorey...

Heckm if Joe Lieberman had it his way he'd more than likely have Bush invade Syria and Iran as well...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 04:32 PM

From New York Times Online 29 November 2005:

Militants in Iraq Threaten to Kill German Archaeologist
By KIRK SEMPLE
and RICHARD BERNSTEIN

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 29 - A prominent German archaeologist and aid worker who had lived and worked in Iraq for years has been kidnapped, the German government confirmed today as images of her surrounded by masked, armed men were broadcast on international television.

The kidnappers threatened to kill the archaeologist, Susanne Osthoff, unless Berlin stopped cooperating with the Iraqi government, according to a videotape delivered to the German state broadcaster ARD. A still image from the tape showed two blindfolded people flanked by three men, their faces concealed by kaffiyehs. One of the men held a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. Ms. Osthoff was kidnapped with her driver, whose name was not released. She is the first German national to be kidnapped in Iraq.

News of Ms. Osthoff's abduction came as the aid group Christian Peacemaker Teams confirmed that four Westerners taken hostage on Saturday in a neighborhood in western Baghdad were workers for the organization. The group said that Norman Kember, a 74-year-old Briton, was among the missing workers, who also included an American and two Canadians. An official from the American Embassy in Baghdad declined today to name the kidnapped American or even to confirm the affiliation of that American, saying, "We're engaged with the family on all these issues."

The Arabic language television station Al Jazeera broadcast a videotape today purportedly showing the four Westerners, including Mr. Kember. On the tape, the kidnappers, who said they were from a previously unknown group called Swords of Truth, accused their captives of being "spies of the occupying forces."

The wave of abductions suggested that after a yearlong lull in kidnappings, the tactic might be regaining currency as a preferred tool of intimidation by the insurgency, which is seeking to topple the American-backed government and drive foreign troops and business interests out of the country. More than 200 foreigners have been abducted since the American invasion 31 months ago. Dozens of the captives have been killed in captivity and about 20 remain missing.

Kidnappings - and their ghoulish corollary, videotaped beheadings - reached a peak in the fall of 2004 and paralyzed the foreign community of government officials, executives, aid workers and journalists, who severely restricted their movements and beefed up security measures.

During the American military siege on the insurgent stronghold of Falluja last November, troops discovered a number of bunkers where captives had apparently been held and tortured. Following the Falluja offensive, kidnappings of foreigners fell off dramatically and car bombs became the foreign community's greatest threat.

Militant Shiite opponents of the American-led international presence in Iraq are believed to have committed two of the most recent high-profile kidnappings and murders of foreigners, both journalists. Rory Carroll, a reporter for The Guardian, was abducted in October in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad but released unharmed after a day in captivity. In August, Steven Vincent, an American freelance journalist researching a book in Basra, was also abducted and killed.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, facing her first crisis since taking office last week, called on Ms. Osthoff's kidnappers today to release the archaeologist. "We condemn this act in the harshest possible terms," Mrs. Merkel said in a brief statement to the press. "We urgently appeal to the perpetrators to hand both of them over into safe custody."

Mrs. Merkel said that the government had set up a crisis committee to deal with the kidnapping, and she told Ms. Osthoff's family in Germany that everything would be done to secure her release.

"They can rest assured," Mrs. Merkel said of the family, "that the government will do everything in its power to bring both the kidnapped to safety and to secure their lives."

Ms. Osthoff's kidnapping was already riveting a German public that has long been among Europe's most skeptical in its attitude toward the Iraq war, which Germany has opposed from the beginning. Germany has consistently refused to send troops to Iraq, and Mrs. Merkel has vowed not to change that policy. But she has also said she would continue Germany's ongoing training of Iraqi police in the United Arab Emirates, an activity that the kidnappers apparently were referring to in their demand that Germany stop cooperating with the Iraqi government.

In a broadcasting decision reminiscent of the response in France to the kidnapping of Florence Aubenas, a French journalist, and her driver earlier this year, German television focused all day on Ms. Osthoff and her activities in Iraq, which combined efforts to preserve the country's archaeological treasures and to provide it with medical aid.

"She has been bringing medicine and medical equipment to Iraq for years," Ms. Osthoff's mother, who has been identified in the German press only as Ingrid H., said on German television. "We are always alarmed when something happens there."

Ms. Osthoff, the German press reported, has lived in Iraq for many years and is fluent in Arabic. She was married to an Iraqi man but the couple divorced some years ago. Ms. Osthoff has a 10-year-old daughter who lives in a boarding school in southern Germany.

After news of Ms. Osthoff's kidnapping became known here, a German newspaper, the Neue Osnabrücker Zeiting, reported that Ms. Osthoff had been targeted by extremist groups close to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi during the summer, when she was living in Mosul in northern Iraq. At the time, the newspaper said, Ms. Osthoff was escorted by American soldiers to Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone. Since then, Ms. Osthoff has been negotiating both with the German Embassy in Baghdad and the local Kurdish-dominated government in the northern town of Arbil to build a German cultural center there, the newspaper said.

It was unclear whether she was accompanied by security guards, a basic precaution taken by most Westerners traveling and working in Iraq.

The four aid workers who went missing over the weekend were apparently not traveling in the company of security guards.

A human rights advocate in Baghdad, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the Christian Peacemaker Teams have acted with reckless disregard for their own safety by moving unprotected through communities generally hostile to the foreign presence. The rights advocate said the group's representatives were entering mosques in predominantly Sunni neighborhoods to offer their services in helping find missing family members, were accompanying families fleeing to the border, and were trying to organize prison visits for relatives of inmates.

The organization has declared its opposition to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. But even so, many of the groups that have claimed responsibility for recent kidnappings have also claimed links to Mr. Zarqawi, whose animosity toward Christians and Jews is redolent in nearly all his pronouncements.

Like the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross, most major international aid and reconstruction organizations have pulled most of their foreign staff from Iraq. Some of the smaller organizations that have remained have demonstrated a cavalier attitude toward personal safety, traveling without bodyguards and entering neighborhoods and regions considered generally hostile toward the American-led foreign presence.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: DougR
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 04:20 PM

Perhaps, Ebbie, you should read the op-ed piece authored by Democrat Senator and former candidate for Vice President of the United States Joseph Lieberman wrote for the New York Times. It's probably on the Times Web page today. If not, perhaps some kindly Mudcat Blue Clicky artist will provide a link. According to him, all is not gloom and doom in Iraq as the adminstration's detractors would have us believe.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 04:08 PM

Oh, but Carol, Halliburton is the only company in the world that can build stuff or repair stuff...

Jus ask T-Burton...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 03:56 PM

Dome Petroleum referred to in my post is part of Dome International based in Dubai, which I suppose makes it a company registered in the UAE, not Iraq as I first thought.

This is pretty pathetic, Teribus, considering the fact that nowhere in the page to which you linked is there any mention of which "Dome" they are referring to. As usual, you're just making up your "facts" as you go along.

........

On the subject of war profiteers like Halliburton (and its various subsidiaries) and corruption...


http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=15

Halliburton

"The biggest windfall in the invasion of Iraq has most certainly gone to the oil services and logistics company Halliburton. The company, which was formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, had revenue of over $8 billion in contracts in Iraq in 2003 alone. And while Halliburton's dealings in Iraq have been dogged everywhere by scandal - including now a criminal investigation into overcharging by Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root for gas shipped into Iraq - Vice President Cheney manages to be doing quite well from the deal. He owns $433,000 unexercised Halliburton stock options worth more than $10 million dollars.

But Halliburton's history of benefiting from government largesse goes back a ways. From 1962 to 1972 the Pentagon paid the company tens of millions of dollars to work in South Vietnam, where they built roads, landing strips, harbors, and military bases from the demilitarized zone to the Mekong Delta. The company was one of the main contractors hired to construct the Diego Garcia air base in the Indian Ocean, according to Pentagon military histories.

In the early 1990s the company was awarded the job to study and then implement the privatization of routine army functions under then-secretary of defense Dick Cheney. When Cheney quit his Pentagon job, he landed the job of Halliburton's CEO, bringing with him his trusted deputy David Gribbin. The two substantially increased Halliburton's government business until they quit in 2000, once Cheney was elected vice president. This included a $2.2 billion bill for a Brown and Root contract to support US soldiers in Operation Just Endeavor in the Balkans.

After Cheney and Gribbin departed, another confidante of Cheney, Admiral Joe Lopez, former commander in chief for U.S. forces in southern Europe, took over Gribbin's old job of go-between for the government and the company, according to Brown and Root's own press releases.

In 2001 the company took in $13 billion in revenues, according to its latest annual report. Currently, Brown and Root estimates it has $740 million in existing U.S. government contracts (approximately 37 percent of its global business).

For example, in mid November 2001, Brown and Root was paid $2 million to reinforce the U.S. embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, under contract with the State Department, according to the New York Times. More recently Brown and Root was paid $16 million by the federal government to go to Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, to build a 408-person prison for captured Taliban fighters, according to Pentagon press releases.

That's by no means all: Brown and Root employees can be found back home running support operations from Fort Knox, Kentucky, to a naval base in El Centro, California, according to company press releases. In December 2001, Brown and Root secured a 10-year deal named the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), from the Pentagon, which has already been estimated at $830 million.

Meanwhile independent agencies are still skeptical about claimed financial savings from contracting out military support operations. According to the Government Accounting Office (GAO), a February 1997 study showed that a Brown and Root operation in Bosnia estimated at $191.6 million when presented to Congress in 1996 had ballooned to $461.5 million a year later.

All told this former Yugoslavia contract has now cost the taxpayer $2.2 billion over the last several years. Examples of overspending by contractors include flying plywood from the United States to the Balkans at $85.98 a sheet and billing the army to pay its employees' income taxes in Hungary.

A subsequent GAO report, issued September 2000, showed that Brown and Root was still taking advantage of the contract in the Balkans. Army commanders were unable to keep track of the contract because they were typically rotated out of camps after a six-month duration, erasing institutional memory, according to the report. The GAO painted a picture of Brown and Root contract employees sitting idly most of the time. The report also noted that a lot of staff time was spent doing unnecessary tasks, such as cleaning offices four times a day. Pentagon officials were able to identify $72 million in cost savings on the Brown and Root contract simply by eliminating excess power generation equipment that the company had purchased for the operation.

Brown and Root has been also been investigated for over billing the government in its domestic operations. In February 2002, Brown and Root paid out $2 million to settle a suit with the Justice Department that alleged the company defrauded the government during the mid-1990s closure of Fort Ord in Monterey, California.

The allegations in the case surfaced several years ago when Dammen Gant Campbell, a former contracts manager for Brown and Root turned whistle-blower, charged that between 1994 and 1998 the company fraudulently inflated project costs by misrepresenting the quantities, quality, and types of materials required for 224 projects. Campbell said the company submitted a detailed "contractors pricing proposal" from an army manual containing fixed prices for some 30,000 line items.

Once the proposal was approved, the company submitted a more general "statement of work," which did not contain a breakdown of items to be purchased. Campbell maintained the company intentionally did not deliver many items listed in the original proposal. The company defended this practice by claiming the statement of work was the legally binding document, not the original contractors pricing proposal.

"Whether you characterize it as fraud or sharp business practices, the bottom line is the same: the government was not getting what it paid for," says Michael Hirst, of the United States Attorney's Office in Sacramento, who litigated the suit on behalf of the government. "We alleged that they exploited the contracting process and increased their profits at the governments expense.""

........

Halliburton has been fleecing everyone on the cost of importing fuel from Kuwait and other locations...


http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/after/2003/1210fuel.htm

"The United States government is paying the Halliburton Company an average of $2.64 a gallon to import gasoline and other fuel to Iraq from Kuwait, more than twice what others are paying to truck in Kuwaiti fuel, government documents show. Halliburton, which has the exclusive United States contract to import fuel into Iraq, subcontracts the work to a Kuwaiti firm, government officials said. But Halliburton gets 26 cents a gallon for its overhead and fee, according to documents from the Army Corps of Engineers.

The cost of the imported fuel first came to public attention in October when two senior Democrats in Congress criticized Halliburton, the huge Houston-based oil-field services company, for "inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to American taxpayers." At the time, it was estimated that Halliburton was charging the United States government and Iraq's oil-for-food program an average of about $1.60 a gallon for fuel available for 71 cents wholesale. But a breakdown of fuel costs, contained in Army Corps documents recently provided to Democratic Congressional investigators and shared with The New York Times, shows that Halliburton is charging $2.64 for a gallon of fuel it imports from Kuwait and $1.24 per gallon for fuel from Turkey....

... Iraqi's state oil company, SOMO, pays 96 cents a gallon to bring in gas, which includes the cost of gasoline and transportation costs, the aides to Mr. Waxman said. The gasoline transported by SOMO - and by Halliburton's subcontractor - are delivered to the same depots in Iraq and often use the same military escorts. The Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center pays $1.08 to $1.19 per gallon for the gas it imports from Kuwait, Congressional aides said. That includes the price of the gas and its transportation costs.

The money for Halliburton's gas contract has come principally from the United Nations oil-for-food program, though some of the costs have been borne by American taxpayers. In the appropriations bill signed by Mr. Bush last month, taxpayers will subsidize all gas importation costs beginning early next year. In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Waxman responded to the latest information on to costs of the Halliburton contract. "It's inexcusable that Americans are being charged absurdly high prices to buy gasoline for Iraqis and outrageous that the White House is letting it happen," he said. "

........

And we can see that the Coalition Provisional Authority (appointed by the occupying countries) missed no opportunities to create a lack of transparency in their accounting practices, which has made it so much easier for US companies and other foreign companies to make a buck at the expense of the Iraqi people and US taxpayers...


http://www.soros.org/initiatives/cep/articles_publications/publications/irw_brief_20040624

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53164-2004Jul15.html

........

And just in case anyone is still wondering about what the oil industry's agenda is in Iraq, here are some excerpts from the page I linked to earlier...


"WASHINGTON, Nov 23 (IPS) - Oil exploration deals currently being negotiated between the Washington-backed Iraqi government and multinational oil companies could cost Iraqis up to 194 billion dollars in lost revenues and transfer more than two-thirds of the country's oil reserves to the control of foreign firms, a new report warns.

"In short, the winners for control of Iraq's oil are the U.S., the UK, and their oil companies," said Steve Kretzmann of Oil Change International and co-publisher of the report, "Crude Designs: The Rip-Off of Iraq's Oil Wealth".

"The losers are the Iraqi people," he added.

The report says that by binding the interim Iraqi government to a type of contract that gives the upper hand to their executives, multinational oil companies will guarantee themselves fat profit margins of 42 to 162 percent, far more the usual industry target of around 12 percent.

U.S. and British oil companies have been pressing for high returns on investments in Iraq, citing the country's volatile security and political situation.

"The form of contracts being promoted is the most expensive and undemocratic option available," said Greg Muttitt of PLATFORM, a London-based oil industry watchdog group. "Iraq's oil should be for the benefit of the Iraqi people, not foreign oil companies."

The contracts are called "production sharing agreements" (PSAs), which typically run between 25 and 40 years and are off-limits to public scrutiny...

...critics note that the terms of such contracts, now keenly promoted by the U.S. and Britain, bar local authorities from amending them in the future and are subject to confidentiality provisions.

Developed in the 1960s, the contracts keep legal ownership of oil reserves in state hands, thus avoiding allegations that national wealth has been transferred to foreign hands. But in practice, they give oil companies the same results as the concession agreements they replaced. PSAs guarantee investors stable taxes for the life of the project.

Iraqis will not be able to contest the contracts in their own courts, because they require that all disputes be heard by international investment tribunals. Such tribunals have traditionally ruled based on commercial interests rather than on national interests, international law or human rights...

...The study points a finger at a group of powerful Iraqi politicians and technocrats who are pushing for this system of long-term contracts with foreign oil companies. This, the report finds, "will be beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny or democratic control".

Authors of the report say their findings confirm, as many Iraqis have long believed, that one of the reasons for the U.S-led invasion of Iraq was to share the spoils of war with oil companies in Iraq, a country that has the world's third largest oil reserves.

"Many Iraqis believe that the war was waged for oil and Iraqi public opinion is overwhelmingly against the U.S.-led occupation, so entering into secret arrangements with foreign oil companies will only increase the chances of political instability," said Erik Leaver, a research at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, also a co-author of the report.

PSAs are not the only option available, says the report, quoting International Atomic Energy Agency figures that show that this type of contract is only used for about 12 percent of the world's oil reserves, mostly in countries with high production costs and uncertain exploration results.

The report suggests that as an alternative to the PSAs, Iraq can finance its oil production by getting international oil companies to sign shorter-term and less restrictive contracts. They can also fund exploration with their own money, or even use future oil flows as collateral to borrow funds, regionally or internationally.

If the Arab country, whose occupiers say they are there to promote freedom and democracy, follows along with the proposed PSAs, the report cautions, "Iraq could be surrendering its democracy as soon as it achieves it.""

........

On the other hand, I think it is worth pointing out that the only thing that has changed in the last year or so as compared to how things were being done before, is the media coverage of these kinds of things. These things didn't just suddenly start happening all of a sudden during the last year or two, and yet the mainstream media in the US either completely ignored them, or they actively supressed any reportage of them until fairly recently. Why would they ignore it before, and only start to address it recently? I think it's because the mainstream media in the US is heavily influenced by the people who want Iraq to become balkanized, and those people know that if the US removes its troops now, Iraq will split apart into warring ethnic states.

I don't know what the answers are, but I'd like to see some transparency in the way the US does business, especially with regard to what is being done in Iraq, and I think that the first question that should be asked (and answered) when any kinds of decisions are being made about Iraq is "will the results of this decision benefit the Iraqi people first and foremost". Anything else is conflict of interest, and calls into question the motives of the governments of the "coalition" countries for their involvement in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 03:38 PM

Lexdexia, prolly, W-gang 'er just plain too much to drink, er both...

No, no...

Bill Clinton made me do it!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 03:08 PM

Bobert,

in which way your 26 Nov 05 - 09:23 AM post was meant as a response to my scenario escapes me.

While it has often been claimed that these have been being some dirty-tricks operation by the other side,    when the facts come out such claims have generally been shown not to h"old water. (McGrath)

I'm curious, McGrath, what is the basis for your use of the word "generally"? Personal subjective evaluation (like my use of the term 'at least as probable') or do you have access to data?

BTW, your definition of 'terrorism' (' anyone who carries out atrocities') is (deliberately?) so broad that it is senseless. Most definitions at least also take the aim of the terror into account. With your definition a brutal rape is terrorism, or a local 'war' between drug dealers.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 02:35 PM

Sorry, Eb, but folks like T-PeaUnnerTheShell loves to use slight of hand to get folks foused on the stuff that really, in the big scheme of things, don't matter too much at all... By doing that he is trying to distract folks attention away from the obvious to the obscure...

If this is some high school debatin' team then he is the master (Yeah, anyone wnats to mess with that, feel free...) but debatin' ain't gonna get the US extrictaed from the Chinese handcuffs the Bush just had to try out... There ain't no hunt left in the "stay-the-course" dog... He all hunted out...

Now we hear Bush sayin' stuff like "Yeah, we can have a discussion" but he don't want no discussion... NMight of fact, I personally don't feel this man is capable of a discussion... That's why he surrounded himself with the small little circle of folks who also don't want to have any discussions... Bush is the most myway-or-the-highway president has ever had...

And like Doctor Phil askes, "Hey, is it working for you?"...

Well, I know hpw Bush would answer this question but a growing majority of people in the country don't see things the way that Bush sees them... That is the "arrogance" that so many porgressives, and now even moderates, are talking about when it comes to the guy...

And now back to Iraq where a yet-to-be-elected constitutional government continues to try to convict Saddam Hussien so they can string him up... Hey, is this even legal??? Seriously...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 12:54 PM

You're making WAY too much sense, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 12:13 PM

Well, well, well...

Lets review once again why we supposedly invaded Iraq:

1. Iraq was trying to make nuclear weapons to attack the US.... Yes, even though by the time that Bush pulled the trigger the Niger story had been debunked, the aluminum tubes story had been debunked and the UN inspectors had found nuthun' those 16 words were the crux of the big scare campaigne to sell the war...

    1.a ) This supposed reason turned out to be FALSE...

2. Iraq was making biological weapons to attack the US...

    2.a) This supposed reason also has turned out to bne FALSE...

3. Iraq had stocpiles of chemical weapons ready to be unleashed upon the US...

    3.a) The supposed reason also FALSE...

4. Saddam had ties to Al Quida...

    4.a) FALSE, again...

So if the the initial reason fro going to war no longer exist, why aren't we talking more seriously about getting the heck outta of Iraq???

Well, well, well, let's do a little review of the "New & Improved" reasons for why we are still at war:

5. Saddam was a bad man and he killed his own people...

   5.a) Well, yes, his was a bad man and he did kill some of his own people... Hmmmmm, can anyone think of any other dictators that the US is buddied who are bad men and have killed their owm people??? Why haven't we declared war on them???

6. Iraq needs to have a democratic governemnt...

   6.a) So does the US but we haven't declared war on ourselves...

7. We can't just "cut and run"....

   7.a) Would someone like to tell the peanut gallery how many men died in Vietnam after Nixon started his "We can't just cut and run" PR campaign... Try 20,000 more men in body bags, folks...

8. Well, civil war will break out...

   8.a) Too late, it's all going strong...

So my question... Seeing as there there really isn't a decent excuse fir continuing this war and occupation why are we seriously talking about an exit plan? Sure somw will say that we are fighting terrorism in Iraq but the number of foriegner being killed in the insurgent movement is like negligaible compared to Iraqis... Not to fear, what few terrorists that might be in Iraq won't need to stay there after we are gone...

But this brings us to the point that others have made and ties into my about question...

If there's no apparent good reason for being there, it is not unreasonable to look at Iraq's oil as the motivating factor fir the contunued occupation???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 11:47 AM

I've noted in this thread some attempts at logic, then a veer into a guilt-by-mysterious reference on the part of CarolC. When challenged by Teribus, CarolC without connecting the dots cited some mysterious initials which Teribus filled in. Aha, we see the true connections. Dianavan supplemented the argument by claiming Israel as a beneficiary, again without connecting the dots. Then the usual gang piled on to Teribus' motives, associations, character and justified not challenging the words or concepts by labeling it 'fact-checking' when in fact they had provided more accusations then facts to begin with!

So, what's REALLY going on in Iraq?

I get to talk to some of the soldiers coming back. I believe them because most of the time THEY don't claim to know - and they've been there, which is more than you lot.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 11:23 AM

Ivan's little sister: Ivana, the Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 11:17 AM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 06:07 AM

It doesn't really matter WHO owns the goddamn Oil Companies, it is their ACTIONS that some people are unhappy with.

Being obsessed with the alleged owner ship is just another red herring.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 02:32 AM

Some more info for you CarolC as to who is doing what currently in Iraq:

Oil Exploration and Development Contracts with the former Iraqi Regime and Foreign Companies (source: World Markets Research Centre):
West Qurna Phase 2 (Lukoil - Russian);
Majnoon (Total - French);
Bin Umar (Zarubezhneft - Russian);
Nasiriya (Eni - Italian, Repsol - Spanish);
Halfaya (BHP - Australian, South Korean consortium, CNPC - Chinese, Agip - Italian);
Ratawi (Shell - Netherlands);
Tuba (ONGC - Indian, Sonatrach - BVI);
Suba-Luhais (Slavneft - Russian);
Gharaf (TPAO - Turkey, Japex - Japan);
Al-Ahdab (CNPC - Chinese);
Amara (PetroVietnam);
Western Desert (ONGC - Indian, Pertamina - Indonesia, Stroitransgaz - Russian, Tatneft - Russian)

No US majors there CarolC, lots of Russians though, who were owed billions for weapons purchased by the Iraqi Government of Saddam Hussein. All you've got to do is just join up the dots. The anti-war, anti-Bush crowd seem to be awfully keen at doing that in other areas.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 02:22 AM

CarolC - 28 Nov 05 - 10:16 PM

Nice try CarolC but you are wrong again.

Dome Petroleum referred to in my post is part of Dome International based in Dubai, which I suppose makes it a company registered in the UAE, not Iraq as I first thought.

So Shell is American is it CarolC? Just the same way that ENI was??

Or is just "Shell" an American Company? what about Royal Dutch Shell - is that American? - or what about Anglo-Dutch Shell - American too? - or what about Shell Transport?

From Shell Groups web site:
"July 20th marked the formal unification of Royal Dutch and Shell Transport under a single new parent company, Royal Dutch Shell plc."

Do you know what the term "parent company" means CarolC, if you still believe that Shell is an American Company you could write to the CEO Jeroen van der Veer, he lives in the Netherlands CarolC, don't know his home address but I dare say you could contact him at Shell Corporate Headquarters in Den Hague. From Wikipedia on Royal Dutch Shell plc:

"Its corporate headquarters are in The Hague and it is tax resident in the Netherlands"

I do not give a damn about how many branches Shell has, by law they normally have to be registered in the country in which they operate, but that does not detract in any way shape or form from the fact that Shell is Dutch. It is a major - fourth largest corporation in the world.

Give you a tip CarolC take a look into a fairly slim book entitled "The Seven Sisters", details how the seven major oil companies in the world came into being, where they originated, why they developed the way that they did and operate they way that they do. One thing that you will find out in that book is that Shell is NOT a major American oil Company.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 10:29 PM

Oh no!!!

Can the "proven liar" certificcate be far behind???

Havin' any fun, T??? Din't think so but, hey, when you have had enuff of defending the Bush/Blair bozos we'd welcome you to our side... Think you'll like the workin' conditions which are less stressfull... Okay, the pay is lousy but, hey, no liein'... And no blood on yer hands at the end of the day...

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 10:16 PM

The Dome Petroleum company listed in your link, Teribus, cannot possibly be the one in Iraq. It is listed under the heading, "Status of Oil Development Deals with Foreign Companies". Not Iraqi companies. So the Dome mentioned in your link must be the one owned by BP Amoco. BP stands for British Petroleum. Amoco stands for American Oil Company. So that's a major British and US oil company.

If you had clicked on the link I provided for Shell, you would have seen that Shell describes itself as a major US oil company.

You said there were no major US oil companies listed in your linked page.

Based on your ridiculous claim about Dome, and your ignorance of Shell as a major US oil company, I think we can dismiss the whole rest of your post with the contempt it so richly deserves.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 10:08 PM

LOL, Eb....

...'cept I think you are right.... He does seem terribly bored by it all...

Hardly any spark of life in his posts anymore...

But hey, it's a pay check...

Prolly a flamin' liberal who just got stuck in a bad job...

Glad it ain't me...

Poor T...

Sniff...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 09:52 PM

Nah. I don't think he does, Bobert. I think he leaves it on his desk when he goes home. Hey. A job is a job.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 09:24 PM

The nice thing about being pathological is that T always believes himself, d, 'er any wingnut in support of the invasion of Iraq...

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 08:57 PM

Yesterday's guardian tells us,

"In Iraq, an American-inspired deal to hand over development of oil reserves, the third largest in the world, to US and British companies is being rushed through by the oil minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi before next month's election."

...and these are thirty year contracts.

Do you still think the invasion of Iraq isn't about control of energy resources?

Teribus - Who are you trying to convince, anyway? Yourself?

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Teribus
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 07:26 PM

CarolC - 27 Nov 05 - 05:48 PM

On the subject of who owns what, here are some of the companies listed in your link, Teribus...

Andarko Petroleum
Small Independent Operator - Incorporated with head office in Texas, this excerpt from their Home Page:

"What We Do
Oil and gas exploration and production is our business - our only business. We're focused on the games we can win. And we're committed to exploration and building upon our proven track record in unconventional resources where we have a global competitive advantage (tight gas, fractured reservoirs, coalbed natural gas and enhanced oil recovery)."   

Now taking into account what was stated regarding possible condition of the Iraqi fields I can easily see why a company that specialises in enhanced oil recovery would be of interest to the Iraqi Oil Ministry.

Dome Petroleum was taken over by Amoco Canada in 1988. BP and Amoco merged in 1998, but in truth it was a BP take-over, the name BP-Amoco didn't last too long and for a number of years now it has just been BP, so I wondered why BP would drop the well known name Amoco yet keep the independent name of a small Canadian company. Of course they didn't - CarolC in her rush to print picked the wrong Dome Petroleum - try this one Carol

Dome Petroleum Services Co.
Al Wehda Quarter
District 904, Street 36, House 5
They also have registered offices in Basra and Kirkuk.

Vitol SA Inc
CarolC informs us with the obligatory link that "The president and Chief Executive Officer of Vitol is http://www.gts.gov.sg/speaker.htm#sp10Ian Taylor (British, lives in London)"

Well Carol C, to quote the Duke of Wellington, " Just because a man is born in a stable it does not make him a horse"

Vitol is a Group of affiliated international oil and gas trading companies incorporated in the Netherlands, in Rotterdam to be exact. So not British, sorry about that.

Tigris Petroleum is actually Australian - founded in 2000 by Norman Davidson Kelly, Alan M. Taylor, both ex-BHP executives specialising in the middle-east, along with Alain Lechevalier (ex-Total where he was Vice-President of Middle-East Exploration) and finally Gonzagues Defforges also ex-Total.

BHP Billiton is a joint venture based in Australia (Another member of the "coalition") and the UK.

ENI is actually THE major Italian Oil Company with its head office in Milan (Googling away CarolC did you only just manage to find an address in Texas (US) for ENI the largest Company in Italy?). I didn't have to look these guys up I have worked for them in the past and am currently working with them in a JV. (Italian so a coalition partner)

Repsol is THE Spanish National Oil Company. (Spain was another member of the coalition at the beginning.)

Sonatrach's Registered Office is located in The British Virgin Islands.

And of course, we all know about Shell Oil. What do you know about Shell Oil Carol? If it is as much as you knew about ENI then you really should go back to your sources, What Shell has been awarded the contract? There are quite a number of them.

So CarolC I make that:

- 1 small independent American oil company as opposed to the four (including 1 major) that you incorrectly turned up.

- No UK based Companies, as opposed to the five that you incorrectly turned up.

- 1 Turkish Company

- 1 Italian Company

- 2 Australian Companies

- 2 Dutch Companies

- 1 Spanish Company

- 1 Company registered in the British Virgin Islands

- 1 Malaysian Company

- 1 Indonesian

- 2 Russian Companies

- 1 Chinese Oil Company

- 1 Canadian Company

- 1 Indian Oil Company

- 1 Iraqi Company

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 08:17 AM

Mr President, why are we going to war in Iraq?

Bush is handed a card which reads '710'...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The only alarming part of this scenario is that someone out there is being encouraged to think of the Mudcat as being a hotbed of disloyal agitators."

Them goddam trouble makin' Folkies have always been a potential source of polical unrest and other Commie inspired trouble!

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 28 Nov 05 - 12:13 AM

That says it all, Carol.

Everybody should read that link.

Especially those who think that the invasion of Iraq was about democracy, freedom from oppression or protection from terrorists.

Iraq was invaded because of the oil.

and guess what?

Azerbaijan's next.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1652164,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 11:25 PM

The countries that are waiving the largest percentages of Iraq's debts are not necessarily going to get the biggest slice of the oil pie from that country. Debt forgiveness and oil contracts in Iraq are not really connected to each other.

Here's how the oil companies want things to play out...

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31153

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 09:10 PM

No, we didn't go to war because Chalabi lied to us. We went to war because it suited us to believe his lies.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 09:03 PM

Yeah, they sho nuff do, d... A lot of blood... But don't matter much to them since they couldn't care less... They are Faithless and so they figgure their won't be no final accountin'...

Always a final accountin'....

No hidin' from it...

They gonna pay...

And, BTW, what really makes me angry is just how hard I work every year to pay my taxes and, believe me, most years it ahs been a major sacrifice, but I do it...

And to have Bush pay Chalibi $450,000 a month for many, many months for Chalibi to lie to him (and this paid from my taxes) really makes me very mad!!! Very mad... Drunk frat boy don't know what it's liie to drive 15 year old cars so there will be money to pay taxes that go a crook/liar!!!!

No, drunk frat boy ain't gottta a clue!!!

Make me mad, mad, mad!!!!

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 08:54 PM

Whats really going on in Iraq?

We invaded because Mr. Chalabi lied to our administration.

Our administration invaded Iraq and made sure Mr. Chalabi gained power.

Mr. Chalabi then signs 30 year contracts with Britain and the U.S. for oil development.

Pretty straight forward if you ask me.

Yesterday's guardian tells us, "In Iraq, an American-inspired deal to hand over development of oil reserves, the third largest in the world, to US and British companies is being rushed through by the oil minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi before next month's election."

I hope the people who voted for Bush realize that they have alot of blood on their hands.

If there is a God, he will send you all to hell.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 07:57 PM

Ebbie, Orwell mostly said it all in '1984'. He even anticipated the behaviour, including the legislation, observation of citizens, the DoubleSpleak, the official 'apologists', the endless war against a vague, unknown opponent after a fashion...

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 07:49 PM

Teribus also says, "You see Dianavan the way it works is this. Iraq owed certain countries billions for arms bought while Saddam was in power. Now those countries have agreed to waive up to 80% of that debt in return for favourable terms in future oil and gas activities in Iraq."

Perhaps you would like to provide a list of the countries who have "agreed to waive up to 80% of that debt in return for favourable terms in future oil and gas activities in Iraq." Please include, not only the debt, but proof that it was for arms sales.

You just aren't very convincing.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 07:46 PM

I suspect, Foolestroupe, that others are instructed to bring him their discovered tidbits - probably by email so he doesn't have to type - so he can obey his own instructions. His own part is not that difficult, especially when he doesn't check his sources.

The only alarming part of this scenario is that someone out there is being encouraged to think of the Mudcat as being a hotbed of disloyal agitators. (Who, me?)

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 07:21 PM

Mr T is really good at giving information that on analysis allows his opponents to strengthen their case. That only convinces me even more than anything else that he is a Public Servant - they are often good at shooting themselves in the foot.

But perhaps I misunderstand his motives; perhaps he is really TRYING to undermine the case of the people he is working for (apparently the oil barons), and we should be grateful for such a wonderful undercover spy!


Of course, having outed him, he will now disappear, and be immediately replaced by another faceless clone, and we will not be able to tell the difference...

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 05:48 PM

On the subject of who owns what, here are some of the companies listed in your link, Teribus...


1.1. The Corporation shall maintain a registered office in Delaware. (From the by-laws of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation)

Dome Petroleum is owned by Amoco(http://www.geohelp.net/history.html), which is now called BP Amoco (oops! There's at least part of the British raison de guerre with regard to Iraq).

The president and Chief Executive Officer of Vitol is http://www.gts.gov.sg/speaker.htm#sp10Ian Taylor (British, lives in London)

Tigris was founded by Norman Davidson Kelly (Scottish) and its offices are located at 73 Portsmouth Road, Liphook, Hampshire, GU30 7EE according to the UK Patent Office.

BHP Billiton is a joint venture based in Australia (Another member of the "coalition") and the UK.

ENI is located in Texas (US).

Repsol is a Spanish owned company. (Spain was another member of the coalition at the beginning.)

Sonatrach's Registered Office is located in The British Virgin Islands.

And of course, we all know about Shell Oil.

Your link cites AvrAsya Technology Engineering as being Turkish. (Another member of the coalition.)

Your link mentions one company from Malaysia, one company from Indonesia, two companies from Russia, one from India, and one from Canada.

So that's at least four US (one of them a major oil company), and five UK based companies of the ones listed in your link, plus the Turkish and Australian based companies... 11 coalition owned companies that we know of. I don't know whether or not Malaysia, India, or Indonesia were a part of the coalition. Canada was not officially, but it has been providing non-combat support.

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 05:28 PM

Driving trucks

Building schools

Pipe fitting

Heating and Air Conditioning

Repairing eguipemnt

Warehousing

Pouring concrete

Filing papers

Equiping kitchens

Wiring Buildings

Oh yes, T-Thief, I'm beginning to see just how specialized Halliburton is!!!!

Not!!! You knothead.... You ain't gonna try to get that useless hound dog to hunt again, are ya, T???

Yeah, maybe you'd like to tell the penut gallery exactly what it is that Halliburton can do that no one else can do???

Please be specfic and then ol' Bobert will Google up you other folks who can do any of these, well, other than pay Dick Cheney for no bid contracts... THAT, my friend, is about the end of Halliburton's list...

But, as per usaul, ol' Bobert will be waitin' fir yer list of things that no one else can do...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What's REALLY Going on in Iraq?
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 02:37 PM

teribus - Interesting and informative link.

"Oil Exploration and Development Contracts with the former Iraqi Regime and Foreign Companies (source: World Markets Research Centre): West Qurna Phase 2 (Lukoil); Majnoon (Total); Bin Umar (Zarubezhneft); Nasiriya (Eni, Repsol); Halfaya (BHP, South Korean consortium, CNPC, Agip); Ratawi (Shell); Tuba (ONGC, Sonatrach); Suba-Luhais (Slavneft); Gharaf (TPAO, Japex); Al-Ahdab (CNPC); Amara (PetroVietnam); Western Desert (ONGC, Pertamina, Stroitransgaz, Tatneft)"

These contracts, of course, were signed while Saddam was in power. I wonder if they are still valid?

It will be interesting to see who will be given the contracts for the vast, untapped oil reserves under the new regime.

It will also be interesting to see how long it will take to repair the damage done to the existing refineries and pipelines.