Discussion request

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by ErikViking, Mar 19, 2007.

  1. ErikViking
    Offline

    ErikViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    904
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Stockholm - Sweden
    Ratings:
    +107
    Can we discuss this:

    1. I have posted that I think U.S. has a responsability in Iraq, and that the troops should remain until the situation there has been stabilized. I have not heard anyone here arguing that, - is there anyone?

    I'd also like to add that U.S. troops are acting under a UN mandate too now, the occupation phase is over.

    2. I heard on the news (which means it isn't a fact) that U.S. is making up contracts on the behalf of a coming stable Iraq government regarding oil - stretching as long as 35 years.
    2a. Is this true?
    2b. What do you think? I think is totally out of U.S. business.
     
  2. Superlative
    Offline

    Superlative Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,382
    Thanks Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +109
    Future of Iraq: The spoils of war
    How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches

    By Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb
    Published: 07 January 2007



    .......Several major oil companies are said to have sent teams into the country in recent months to lobby for deals ahead of the law, though the big names are considered unlikely to invest until the violence in Iraq abates........





    http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132569.ece
     
  3. ErikViking
    Offline

    ErikViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    904
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Stockholm - Sweden
    Ratings:
    +107

    Okay, so basically, that is morelike roumors as of yet?
     
  4. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    The US indeed has a responsibility in Iraq. They should remain until they are either no longer needed, or it becomes obvious that their presence will accomplish nothing.

    Along with the US's responsibility to stabilize Iraq until Iraqis can take over, goes the responsibility of the Iraqi people who wish to maintain a democracy to step up and take charge of their own destiny; which, to this point, they haven't been in any hurry to do.

    At some point the decision needs to be made as to wheterh or not that is actually going to happen, and that time, the decision to withdraw or stay should be made.

    I am unaware of any status change in regard to the US and its supporters going it without the UN. As far as I am aware, it is still a US-led coalition.
     
  5. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Every oil company in the world will eventually ber jockying for position. The wrold runs on fossil fuels and the number of industrialized nations is increasing, not decreasing.

    When OPEC gets a big enough market that they don't need us, we're going to be in a hurt locker.
     
  6. glockmail
    Offline

    glockmail BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    7,700
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Ratings:
    +438
    Long term stable contracts with oil consumers would help to stabilize Iraq, would it not?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. ErikViking
    Offline

    ErikViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    904
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Stockholm - Sweden
    Ratings:
    +107
    I think it is so, but well, global politics aren't exactly easy to follow IMO.
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/2005/0601approval.htm

    I don't know if this is actually true or not. But for the argument:

    Had it been oranges or dades it would have seem so. But oil is controversial. There is no risc in Iraq economy would ever suffer from not being able to sell oil.
    I think (and maybe it is so?) US should take great care in not mixing economical objectives with the current intervention in Iraq. A soverign state should decide for it self how its assets are used.
     
  8. sitarro
    Offline

    sitarro Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,186
    Thanks Received:
    999
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +1,001
    Let's see, Saddam ran the oil industry before, it was in incredibly bad shape and the Iraqi people were seeing very little if anything of the profits. The U.S. and a hand full of other allies went in and took out Saddam and is in the process of rebuilding the infrastructure that has been damaged in the war and was destroyed by 30 years of Saddam rule. Who should take over for the Iraqis in developing the oil fields that are in such disrepair? Russia? France? Germany? Who are the better in oilfield technology than British and American companies? The Iraqis certainly can't handle it for themselves, they can't even get a school built.

    We have spilled blood and burned up one half of a trillion dollars helping the Iraqi people get their freedom, are we owed nothing? Should they get China to run their oil industry?

    There were numerous reasons to take that asshole out and one very important reason was he controlled the second largest oil reserves in the world, he could hold the world hostage with that the way Russia is doing with Europe. Is that something that would be better for the world or the people of Iraq. When the big money starts rolling in and the Iraqi people actually get their share, take a poll to see how many hate the group of countries that made it so for them.
     
  9. ErikViking
    Offline

    ErikViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    904
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Stockholm - Sweden
    Ratings:
    +107
    Thanks for the intrest and viewpoints!

    You have a point here, money spent on rebuilding infrastructure can't just be given away. At the time, with no real stability the vital and most neccesary work must be done immidiatly.

    I don't think anyone should take over from the Iraqis. Not in the long run. If American and Brittish oilfield technology is superior they will probably buy that?

    They don't owe you anything.

    Either you fought a war against terror - your reward is a safer world for you.

    Or you fought a war to liberate the people of Iraq - Not much of a liberation if you are going to hold them in debt.

    Or you fought a war to conquer land and natural resources - Then you owe the Iraqis.

    Is that an important reason for invading a country? How it chooses to administer its natural resources? Maybe yes. But is it valid? Anyway it was done, the reasons were what they were.

    I have no doubt that the average Iraq will be better of now.
     
  10. glockmail
    Offline

    glockmail BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    7,700
    Thanks Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The beautiful Yadkin Valley
    Ratings:
    +438

    Of course its true, at face value, and oil is a much more lucrative business than fruit.

    Controversy is a moot issue.

    OPEC creates a risk as well, being a cartel, which is illegal in the US, a main consumer of oil.

    These companies are not making the State's decisions, they are making business deals lucrative to both parties.
     

Share This Page