BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill

Subject: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 24 May 07 - 03:42 AM

Most of us have known for a long time that the war in Iraq was was about multinationals controlling the oil. In the article linked below, Kucinich explains that the Iraqi parliament is planning to pass a bill that does just that. There will be no fair distribution of oil revenues.

Maybe once Bush gets his hands on the oil, he'll stop killing innocent Iraqis. Instead, he'll let them die a slow, economic, death. What kind of people justify human misery for personal wealth?   

When will America stop supporting the multinationals? When will the American people realize that the same people control both Republicans and Democrats? How can we stop the faceless multi-national machinery?

http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0523-07.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 24 May 07 - 09:23 PM

"How can we stop the faceless multinational machinery?"

We Americans can support and vote for candidates like Dennis Kucinich.
I am a member of Maine Impeach. Last Saturday afternoon we met with Kucinich in Portland, Maine. While he talked about the reasons for impeaching Cheney and Bush, he also talked about the Bush administration starting a war so these multinationals could pull off the biggest heist in history. He said that Cheney and Bush should not only be impeached but that they should be tried as war criminals. He might not have the corporate money of the front runners but he has my vote for being honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 24 May 07 - 10:54 PM

I am timing how long it takes Teribus, the great GOD of the international oil business to weigh in and belittle dianavan for even bringing this up. Wait for it.........

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 May 07 - 09:58 PM

Actually, dianavan, I doubt that most of us have known for a long time (or even a short) time that this war is about multinationals, except the self-selected few at Mudcat, and some Democrat legislators. Even my son, who is the most articulate lefty I know, doesn't know it or believe it. Maybe that disqualifies his credentials.

Let me see, if we wanted Iraqi oil so badly, then we could have made peace with Saddam, bought the oil at prices that would not disrupt our economy or theirs, and saved thousands of lives in the process.

So it musn't have been the oil; oh yeah, it was the president's desire to avenge his father's defeat in the first Gulf War. Oh, he wasn't defeated; he did what the coalition called for and then pulled our troops...what was the Left thinking!

BTW, there are lots of reasons to not like some of the actions of multinational corporations that have to do with business practices. But deliberately wanting war in the Middle East...ahh no.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 27 May 07 - 07:45 PM

Bush and company were afraid that Saddam was in the process of flooding the market with cheap oil through the Oil For Food Program. The multinationals wanted control of the oil fields so they could meter the flow of oil through the chaos and instability of a civil war thereby keeping the price artificially high. Why do you think Cheney met in secret with the oil companies to forge an "Energy Plan" before 911?

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 May 07 - 10:52 AM

The Iraq parliament is not in fact planning to pass the bill in question. According to the Wall St. Journal, they--especially the Sunni legislators--are well aware the bill gives too many goodies to international oil firms.

It's not a done deal by any means.

Don't underestimate the Iraqis on this score.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: Alice
Date: 28 May 07 - 11:18 AM

read House of Bush, House of Saud
it's a bestseller, available since 2004.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 May 07 - 11:21 AM

Hope this cut-n-paste meets the one screen limit...

What Congress Really Approved: Benchmark No. 1: Privatizing Iraq's Oil for US Companies
    By Ann Wright
    t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor

    Saturday 26 May 2007

    On Thursday, May 24, the US Congress voted to continue the war in Iraq. The members called it "supporting the troops." I call it stealing Iraq's oil - the second largest reserves in the world. The "benchmark," or goal, the Bush administration has been working on furiously since the US invaded Iraq is privatization of Iraq's oil. Now they have Congress blackmailing the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people: no privatization of Iraqi oil, no reconstruction funds.

    This threat could not be clearer. If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold US reconstruction funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed there. The privatization law, written by American oil company consultants hired by the Bush administration, would leave control with the Iraq National Oil Company for only 17 of the 80 known oil fields. The remainder (two-thirds) of known oil fields, and all yet undiscovered ones, would be up for grabs by the private oil companies of the world (but guess how many would go to United States firms - given to them by the compliant Iraqi government.)

    No other nation in the Middle East has privatized its oil. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iran give only limited usage contracts to international oil companies for one or two years. The $120 billion dollar "Support the Troops" legislation passed by Congress requires Iraq, in order to get reconstruction funds from the United States, to privatize its oil resources and put them up for long term (20- to 30-year) contracts.

    What does this "Support the Troops" legislation mean for the United States military? Supporting our troops has nothing to do with this bill, other than keeping them there for another 30 years to protect US oil interests. It means that every military service member will need Arabic language training. It means that every soldier and Marine would spend most of his or her career in Iraq. It means that the fourteen permanent bases will get new Taco Bells and Burger Kings! Why? Because the US military will be protecting the US corporate oilfields leased to US companies by the compliant Iraqi government. Our troops will be the guardians of US corporate interests in Iraq for the life of the contracts - for the next thirty years.

    With the Bush administration's "Support the Troops" bill and its benchmarks, primarily Benchmark No. 1, we finally have the reason for the US invasion of Iraq: to get easily accessible, cheap, high-grade Iraq oil for US corporations.

    Now the choice is for US military personnel and their families to decide whether they want their loved ones to be physically and emotionally injured to protect not our national security, but the financial security of the biggest corporate barons left in our country - the oil companies.

    It's a choice for only our military families, because most non-military Americans do not really care whether our volunteer military spends its time protecting corporate oil to fuel our one-person cars. Of course, when a tornado, hurricane, flood or other natural disaster hits in our hometown, we want our National Guard unit back. But on a normal day, who remembers the 180,000 US military or the 150,000 US private contractors in Iraq?

    Since the "Surge" began in January, over 500 Americans and 15,000 Iraqis have been killed. By the time September 2007 rolls around for the administration's review of the "surge" plan, another 400 Americans will be dead, as well as another 12,000 Iraqis.

    How much more can our military and their families take?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army and US Army Reserves and retired as a colonel. She served 16 years in the US diplomatic corps in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Micronesia and Mongolia. She resigned from the US Department of State in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq.
-------

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 29 May 07 - 11:44 AM

"If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold US reconstruction funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed there."

That says it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 29 May 07 - 09:33 PM

The cat's out of the bag about stealing Iraq's oil fields, so expect another horrific diversion like a mysterious missle attack on one of our destroyers in the Persion Gulf to start the nuking of Iran or maybe a drug-resistant TB epidemic. We had 911 to start this war. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 May 07 - 09:41 PM

Privatization....reconstruction funds.   If there is anything to the above allegation--and sorry, Truthout does not qualify as a reliable source--the Iraqis are very likely able to recognize blackmail for what it is. And decline the offer.

As I said earlier, some Iraqis have already reacted.

We'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 May 07 - 10:13 PM

Okay, forget Truthout. How about Ann Wright personally? Reliable? How about the text of the bill that was passed? Reliable? Adn yes, you are completely correct... we'll see.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 30 May 07 - 02:45 AM

Maybe its because Truthout and Common Dreams are the only media courageous enough to report the truth. Does Kucinich qualify as a reliable source?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 May 07 - 11:50 PM

Look, as you know, if you want to convince anybody--rather than preach to the choir-- , you have to seek out sources which would likely be perceived as objective by your opponents.

If you can find the assertion about the oil fields-reconstruction funds connection in the Christian Science Monitor, WSJ, Economist etc. it will carry a lot more weight than in Truthout.


Re: the bill:

If in fact 2/3/ of the known oil fields and all yet undiscovered fields would be up for grabs--i.e. controlled by foreign, primarily US firms, it is unlikely the Iraqi parliament would pass such a bill.

As I've said before, there is already opposition in the Iraqi parliament.

The question at this point, I suppose is, if we will have in Iraq a similar scenario as in Scotland in 1707--"Such A Parcel of Rogues in a Nation". You're familiar with that one, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 31 May 07 - 02:25 AM

I am not familiar with -"Such A Parcel of Rogues in a Nation", but I believe that the Sunnis will indeed try to pull down the al Maliki govt. of Iraq. Unfortunately, this will probably lead to a prolonged U.S. presence. In fact, I am hearing some rumbling about using the S. Korea model for Iraq to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. Presumably, this is to secure access to Iraqi oil by multinationals.

I still think that the Iranian army should have a strong presence in Iraq and that it is Iran who should be protecting the govt. of al Maliki. The U.S. continues to play two against the middle in an effort to control the flow of oil with absolutely no regard for the lives of Iraqis.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 31 May 07 - 02:28 AM

Oh, how soon we forget.

Before the invasion of Iraq we had Saddam in a box and Iraq could not export oil except for the small amount allowed under the oil for food program. When it seemed that the oil embargo might be lifted soon, Saddam signed contracts with Russia and China allowing them to come in and operate the oil fields as soon as the embargo was lifted. This did not please Exxon and Chevron and the others. What to do?

The solution was simple. Topple the Saddam government thereby voiding the contracts. Then, install a government of our own which would let American oil companies come in to reap the profits.

So far, so good but the mission is not quite accomplished yet. As soon as it is, our troops will come home.

Putting this another way, the American middle east policy is "We control the oil". Those who disagree are called radicals or terrorists. Those who agree are called moderates.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 May 07 - 07:15 AM

Dianavan--Re: "Such A Parcel"--just ask any of our UK members.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: pirandello
Date: 31 May 07 - 07:25 AM

You know what? Nobody really cares where their oil comes from or what sacrifices in terms of human misery have been made in order to get at it.
As long as middle-America can gas-up their SUV's they're happy.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqi hydrocarbon bill
From: TIA
Date: 31 May 07 - 08:51 AM

"Real Soldiers Die In Hummers, So You Can Play One In Yours"