So because Bush made a terrible decision, oil companies are stealing. Please tell me there’s something more to this argument. Is every American or multinational company doing business in Iraq also stealing?
How would we know? Its not as though transparency is at a premium here, on anybody’s part. But you can damn sure betcha that the average Arab and/or Muslim is going to see this in the dimmest possible light.
I think your analogy is off. How about this, you have a tree in your backyard that drops magic acorns that you sell for a dollar a piece. You pay your son to collect the acorns 20¢ a piece. You pay your wife 15¢ a piece to market them. The family has 65¢ an acorn deposited into the family checking account.
Now I come into your house and “regime change” you. I have my people collect and market the acorns. And I pass the remaining money, lets say around 50¢ an acorn put into the family checking account. Now my group is making the collection and marketing money that your family was making. Doesn’t that follow?
Never mind that now your wife is making come-hither eyes at handsome Mr. Iran across the street and your kids are attacking each other with box cutters since the family is in shambles without you… but hey, it’s legal, right?
I’m not sure my analogy is much better, on preview, but what the heck, I’ll float it for the peanut gallery. 
The only issue with this analogy is what kind of deal were wife and son actually getting from dad? Maybe they were getting 5¢ each, regular beatings when dad went on a bender, and the remaining 90¢ went to pay for dad’s mistresses. If that’s the original deal, the regime change is a good thing.
Although, of course, that has nothing to do with the overall “stealing” aspect of the analogy, but only indicates that Dad was a dick.
(But I’m commenting mostly because I wanted to express how amused I was by the analogy. :))
Mostly they are, I expect. We forcibly changed their laws on government and foreign ownership and exports, after all. And our corruption in Iraq is notorious.
If a restaurant blows up your kitchen so you are forced to eat there, is that stealing ? Perhaps “extortion” would be closer. In any case, at best our “business” with Iraq is business the way the Mafia would do it.
The problem is, the situation in Iraq is worse than it was under Saddam. So to continue the analogy, if Dad was beating Mom, we are not only beating her but chopping off fingers and raping her daughter.
That’s overdoing it a bit, maybe, but it sure has been a while since I heard the argument “They had it worse under Saddam!”
Those lucky Iraqis. All that money!
Maybe they can finally afford to pay some U.S. contractors to rebuild a few power plants so they can have electricity more than half the time.
Though they may have to wait while the contractors build the permanent military bases necessary for the U.S. to help maintain security and stability in the country we conqu-- er, “liberated.”
Let’s not forget that Saddam*(friend of al queda!)* was bad (9/11!),so almost any situation we create is by default an improvement for those poor downtrodden folks. If some of our most powerful corporations benefit from helping out the Iraqis, that’s just our reward for such a generous act of compassion.
So I guess this means we can leave sooner rather than later.
I love a good analogy fight.
But for all these analogies, nobody is actually showing anything that demonstrates that multinational oil companies are unlawfully in operating in Iraq by taking oil that the Iraqi government doesn’t want them to have.
I find it difficult to use the term “theft” when the Iraqi government is signing contracts with these companies to do the work that the Iraqi government wants them to do. Link.
I don’t think we needed to wait this long.
You mean the laws we forced on them, and the “government” we prop up ?
And, from the standpoint of justice, anything that profits America in any way from this war is wrong.
If we were forcing oil laws upon Iraq, the damn laws would already be in place. Iraqi politicians have been arguing about this law for several years now. You are at the very least misinformed about how the Iraqi government is dealing with oil companies.
In any case, not all of the oil companies doing business with the Iraqi government are American. Several of them are foreign state-owned enterprises. That’s in the cite that you apparently didn’t read.
Many of them are.
And some of the laws we forced on them were those allowing foreign access and ownership to Iraq’s resources. AND, we broke up their state run oil industry; that wasn’t THEIR idea.
Your ranting aside, What business should the Iraqis be in? Selling oil that is at its highest price (ever) sounds like a good business to be in to me considering the alternatives to Saddam’s regime were international sanctions. You remember that Regime. He killed a million people in the Iraq/Iran war. Attacked Kuwait, and gassed his own people when they tried to revolt against him.
So how is this money going to be distributed?
**Before major investment is injected, the Baghdad parliament would also first have to finalise a controversial oil law considered by Washington as a key step towards national reconciliation.
The proposed law stipulates a fair distribution of oil revenues between Iraq’s 18 provinces, a sensitive matter in a country wracked by inter-ethnic violence.**
But thanks for sharing your thoughts.
No, the alternative, as we’ve seen, was mass slaughter and destruction by America.
And we’ve done a worse job than him running Iraq. And sold him the poison gas. And supported his war with Iran.
Thank you for sharing yours. But doesn’t your own cite say that this is a “proposed law”? Meaning that it’s all well and good on paper, but far from being a consensus. So why the rush?
Glad to see some of us here are not alone in thinking this way:
U.S. senators seek to stop Iraq oil deals
– my highlights. More at source.
Makes sense to me. But then again what do we know, much less Kerry, Schumer and McCaskill, incompetent lot we all are. :dubious:
Iraq was arbitrarily formed by European intervention. It consists of multiple factions of the religion of peace which has a general problem living as such within it’s own religious sphere. What they have now is a real government with real representation for all the factions. This is in stark contrast to Saddam who ruled without legitimate ellections, death squads and the use of military force against his own people. So yes, the alternative is a future they will be able to grow with instead of living with no hope. I’m sorry the religion of peace decided to make a stand against freedom in Iraq but there is always a price to pay for freedom from tyanny.
Who better to right a wrong then the country who backed Saddam.
Makes sense to me too. You would almost think that Kerry and Schumer cared about Iraq.
No. What we have in Iraq is a fake government with no real power or support or legitimacy, propped up by us. One that will collapse pretty close to instantly when we leave.
And this is different than us how ? Except that he did a much better job.
They have no hope NOW; they were better off under Saddam.
Most Iraqis had more freedom under Saddam than they do now. And what makes you think the people who hate us and our puppet government are all motivated by religion ?
And making noble speeches about the price of liberty is disgusting when we are sacrificing other people without their consent.
A country that is not the enemy of freedom and justice, in other words, someone else than America. A country that isn’t more interested in using Iraq as a tool, toy and punching bag; in other words, not America.
When you make this kind of statement I stopped reading the rest of your bullshit. These people risked their life to vote and they have a legitimate government for the first time.