I think that Uzi has a point in so far as whan (not if) the USA leaves Iraq, it will be all change in the ownership/management of the oil wells
BG’s point about establishing a permanent base in the area ties up with what I was told, and believe that it came from the West Point circuit.
From the USA’s behaviour, it certainly looks as if grabbing the oil was their major objective - which is a bit dumb - even if it was not their major objective.
I understand how it could look that way, too. But once you understand how oil is sold, on the open market where you get the best price for it, then it doesn’t make sense.
Now if you said the war was started to give contracts to specific companies, then I can see a case being made for it. But, again, once Iraq takes over they don’t have to honour those contracts if they don’t benefit them. They can claim the contracts were made under duress during the occupation and who, other than the Americans, would say otherwise?
They don’t even need to claim that the contracts were made under duress.
These things are interesting, you need high capital investment to kick start the project, but once the kit is in place you can ‘re-negotiate’.
Russia has been kicking sh/t out of Shell and BP, my guess is that their negotiating stance has been ‘claim on reserves’ - something that can be shifted on paper to keep SOX compliant.
Stating the totally bleeding obvious Iraq has been a total disaster so its not a great idea to repeat the exercise with Iran.
We can take the country out easy enough but at the moment its a case of l the spiders are all in one box but break the box…
The ideal situation is to engineer a regime change from within into something approximating civilised as judged by the international community.
To cause this to happen we need to do some major opinion changing amongst the Iranian people and that DOESNT mean using logic,common sense ,ethics or similar.
Appealing to greed,peer pressure and hero worship might be better but thats just a guess.
My opinion only but I suspect that quite a lot of peoples beliefs are based on totally illogical
premises.
And before anyone rushes to accuse me of racism I apply the above to all populations anywhere.
Because your speculations aren’t backed up by any actual facts? At least, not that you have provided thus far?
He clearly means the oil IN THE REGION…and thats pretty much a no brainer. The Iraqi oil, while I agree was important to get it flowing again at pre-GW I levels, was secondary to the US riding herd on the REGION, and having troops in position in the REGION in case there was a flare up. Oh, it didn’t work out that way, no doubt…but that was the plan. It wasn’t to steal the Iraqi oil for America’s use…which is what YOU seem to be trying to say. If that was the case, we would have stolen it by now, and completely displaced ANY Iraqi oil infrastructure or personnel with our own, while shipping all that oil here to the US. Has this happened? Not as far as I know.
Yes I do. So what? Whats it got to do with the case you are appearently trying to make wrt the US stealing the oil…or whatever?
And yet…there never was a forced ‘coup d’etat’…was there? Did I miss it? Or is it in the future or something? Again, this doesn’t come close to proving your case that the US stole Iraqi oil…or that stealing said oil was part of the US plan for Iraq. Its speculation that hasn’t been born out by the actual facts of where that oil is going (mostly not to the US), or who is getting most of the money from the sales (afaik, the Iraqi’s are).
-XT
I think you’re asking this question in the wrong forum. We’ll see what the mods have to say about it.
Nothing in that link was news to me.
Actually, it’s precisely the other way around. You’re the one doing all the “speculating” around here:
“If” the Americans leave…
“If” the remaining Iraqi Gov is not in the US’s pocket…
“If” a new one crops up that acts in accordance to what’s best for Iraq and not their pockets…
Meanwhile, the laws and the contracts that bind Iraq’s oil to the US are already in place.
xt, who said anything about “stealing”? Controlling the flow of said oil plus getting lucrative contracts for American companies is what’s on the table.
Then I mis-underheard your point Red. What IS your point then? That US oil companies have gotten lucrative contracts doing things in Iraq? If so…well, duh! Thats pretty much a no brainer. Its also a far cry from them doing something wrong…unless you are going to make the case that they aren’t providing the services promised or something. Is your problem that big oil in Europe hasn’t gotten a shot at Iraqi oil contracts or something? Because if not the American’s, the Europeans were probably the only others who COULD have come in and helped attempt to get Iraqi oil back up and running (had there not been that insurgency thingy of course). I can’t think who else has the depth of expertise in the field besides the Americans and Europeans at this time…and the ability to project that expertise beyond local levels.
So…if you conceed the war was about geo-politics and America attempting to dominate the Middle East, establish a forward and secure base in Iraq from which to project this power, etc, and if you conceed that America isn’t ‘stealing’ Iraqi oil…what are we argueing about here?
-XT
You are being a bit cryptic, here. My first inclination was not that you were specifically calling RedFury a pig, but your statement is sufficiently opaque that I am not sure my first impression was correct.
I would suggest that you make your points more clearly and that your comments in GD be more clearly not insults.
[ /Moderating ]
Mmm…ok. I responded to that, and you replied back. So I’m a bit at a loss. I’ll just let it go though…its sunday and I’m well on the way to drunken bliss at this point. 
Have a good one.
-XT
Apparently, humour is an unknown item around here, or not permitted in this forum. I figured the smilie would have made it known I was making a joke.
From this quote:
“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”
-Robert Heinlein
I was expressing my frustration in getting my point across and was commenting on Redfury’s point of how ‘edumacated’ he is. I imagined that his instructors had the same feeling I’ve been having in this thread and made a joke about it.
I was not calling Redfury a pig, unless by pig you mean pig-headed, I was commenting on my frustration in dealing with him, which could be my own fault for not being clearer. Hey, I chuckled about it for quite a while afterwards. “Teach a pig to sing”, indeed! Hehehe!
So, I apologize if anyone misconstrued my meaning in what I posted.
I am aware of heinlein (and the various prior authors to whom the quote is occasionally attributed). I am even acquainted with humor. My point was that even in the (minimal) context, it was not exactly clear whether your point was to directly call Red a pig–and it has long been a tradition in this Forum that claiming humor is not an absolute defense against a charge of insulting a poster.
I was not saying you had to refrain from humor (or even sarcasm), but that it should be employed in such a way as to avoid any possible confusion if one possible reading would be that of a direct insult.
Iraqi Oil Belongs To The Iraqi People
– bolding/highlighting mine.
And that ladies and gents, is the current estate of affairs vis-a-vis the Iraqi oil-industry and the rest is empty posturing and/or vacuous justifications for an invasion that never should have happened.
“If “ifs” and “buts” were candy and nuts, wouldn’t it be a Merry Christmas?”
I found no way to read it other than as a direct and unwarranted insult towards myself.
That said, apology accepted. Let’s move on, shall we?
Personally, I have a hard time taking many of your “cites” at face value, as they are quite clearly VERY partisan.
note: I’m not saying I have better sources. I’m saying that using sources that are clearly partisan weakens an arguement.
As I have no dog in this fight, I’ll be over here with the popcorn.
<off topic>In case I wasn’t clear myself, I was being rather facetious about the Jesuits and their teaching abilities. For long-time atheist that I am, I regard them (Jesuits) as good as any educators around. Tom might correct me on this for clearly he knows the inner-workings of the RCC much better than I’ll ever be interested in knowing, but to me, the Jesuits in some ways, are the ‘outcasts’ of the Church – due precisely to their intellectual pursuits.
In fact, I’m rather friendly with an elderly Jesuit priest down here, who holds double PHDs, in theology and phsycology respectively, and has had a number of books published. Yet you could never meet a more humble person, both in his personal manners and meager ways of living. And yet he wouldn’t have it any other way.
The fact that he accepts my POV and does not in any way try to proselytize to me is a big factor in said friendship. Not that we avoid the topic, but he simply says to me: “My hijito, siempre y cuando estemos ayudando a los que mas lo nececitan, tengo un respeto absoluto a lo que cada cual concluya acerca de la vida mima.”
Translation: “My son, as long as we’re helping those who needed it most, I absolutely respect whatever anyone concludes about life itself.”
Hard to dislike the old man. Mid-eighties if I’m not mistaken, but his mind’s still sharp as a tack. </off topic>
BTW, Tristan, if you don’t like my sources, as I’ve said over and over in thisw thread it easy enough to do your own search.
For instance, Googling “Iraq oil + US contracts and laws” will give you all sorts of hits, including articles from the NYT, Guardian, UPI and The Independent – surely some of those cites (all saying just about the same thing) would be acceptable to you?
PS-Edit function is currently hanging my browser. Thus I ask you excuse my typos.
Away I must.
Later.
