Discussion request

[ErikViking]

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.

 

[Superlative]

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

 

[ErikViking]

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

Okay, so basically, that is morelike roumors as of yet?

 

[Gunny]

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.

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.

 

[Gunny]

Okay, so basically, that is morelike roumors as of yet?

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.

 

[glockmail]

....

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.

Long term stable contracts with oil consumers would help to stabilize Iraq, would it not?

 

[ErikViking]

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.

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

Long term stable contracts with oil consumers would help to stabilize Iraq, would it not?

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.

 

[sitarro]

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.

 

[ErikViking]

Thanks for the intrest and viewpoints!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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 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.

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.

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

 

[glockmail]

...


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.

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.

 

[boedicca]

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.

The U.S. (and the coalition for that matter) has a moral obligation to not leave Iraq until the Iraqis are able to fulfill their own police, anti-terrorism, and national security activities.

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.

One of the major factors in resolving the factional disputes within Iraq is how the proceeds from oil are divvied up. Some long term arrangements which ensure that the oil is efficiently extracted and processed - and that define the payment streams - is in the national interest of Iraq.

 

[sitarro]

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.

It is being done, there are over 100,000 civilian contractors there, who is paying them? We are, the Iraqis have no money. The assumption that the contracts should be open for bid is ridiculous. American companies have the technology and expertice to do all of the work and we are paying for it, why should anyone else be even consulted?

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?

Really? How are the Iraqis going to get the one thing that they have that anyone wants to buy from them? British and American oil companies were the ones that discovered and set up the equipment to start drilling for it in thr first place with legal permission, they payed to go in and do it. It was only after the oil was pulled out and the potential wealth was realized by the Middle Eastern governments that they stole those rights back and took over the oilfields. Just as what would happen to Israel if the Palestinians took over or California if the Mexicans took it over, it became shit. Without the people that built it to keep it running right it falls apart. And that is what has happened to the oilfields of Iraq. Saddam hasn't kept up with technology or even done the maintenance needed to keep those fields truely productive, he didn't care and also didn't know how. Watch for the same thing to happen to Chavez's follies.

They don't owe you anything.

Why not? We liberated them from a tyrant, we are helping them form a government that will allow them to live in this century, their little girls are going to school, their Olympic team is competing without the threat of death, the one industry that they have to make money with is being repaired and updated. I would feel very indebted to the Coalition if I was an Iraqi.

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

They will be safer too, you will be safer, the world is safer without Saddam and with a free Iraq.

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.

Not being privy to the information the President has I can't say for sure but I know their were many Iraqis that were in exhile from their country that wanted our help, the Kurds wanted our help. The government that was voted in by the people has asked for us to stay and help them. All that help isn't free.

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

You know better, if we get a drop of their resources we will be paying for it, we always have. The United States has never been a holder of other lands, talk to the older European countries for that.

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.

What is an important enough reason? How much incredible environmental damage did thid guy have to do before the World acted against him? How many people, his own, did he have to kill? He tried to assaninate a former President of ours. He broke the cease-fire agreements numerous times for 12 years. He was actively working on and stockpiling extremely dangerous WMDs and was unstable enough to sell to terrorist states. And America finally got a President with enough nalls to do something about him.

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

Congratulations, you are different from the idiots of the world that can't or won't see that.

 

[ErikViking]

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.

Aren't issues the result of controversy?

The OPEC thing is something I haven't looked in to at all. I will do that. GunnyL also mentioned it.

I like "business deal". It sounds good. But writing the contracs at this times seems hastened, maybe this country can't have a proper government in a few years time - but again I need to come back on the matter. (I read a head and there are other points too to consider)

Good input.

The U.S. (and the coalition for that matter) has a moral obligation to not leave Iraq until the Iraqis are able to fulfill their own police, anti-terrorism, and national security activities.

I agree fully

One of the major factors in resolving the factional disputes within Iraq is how the proceeds from oil are divvied up. Some long term arrangements which ensure that the oil is efficiently extracted and processed - and that define the payment streams - is in the national interest of Iraq.

This is a very good argument for signing long-term contracts.

 

[ErikViking]

It is being done, there are over 100,000 civilian contractors there, who is paying them? We are, the Iraqis have no money. The assumption that the contracts should be open for bid is ridiculous. American companies have the technology and expertice to do all of the work and we are paying for it, why should anyone else be even consulted?

Short term contracts might as well be handed out like you describe here - why not, it is a matter of urgency more than anything else.

Really? How are the Iraqis going to get the one thing that they have that anyone wants to buy from them? British and American oil companies were the ones that discovered and set up the equipment to start drilling for it in thr first place with legal permission, they payed to go in and do it. It was only after the oil was pulled out and the potential wealth was realized by the Middle Eastern governments that they stole those rights back and took over the oilfields. Just as what would happen to Israel if the Palestinians took over or California if the Mexicans took it over, it became shit. Without the people that built it to keep it running right it falls apart. And that is what has happened to the oilfields of Iraq. Saddam hasn't kept up with technology or even done the maintenance needed to keep those fields truely productive, he didn't care and also didn't know how. Watch for the same thing to happen to Chavez's follies.

Two things here:
So Saddam stole the oil from companies? Those companies would then be entitled to those contracts, wouldn't that be fair?

Still - how this country will come out is yet to see. They should have the opportunity of choosing a direction for their countrys economical foundation. Would it hurt to wait with the contract signing for a while?

Why not? We liberated them from a tyrant, we are helping them form a government that will allow them to live in this century, their little girls are going to school, their Olympic team is competing without the threat of death, the one industry that they have to make money with is being repaired and updated. I would feel very indebted to the Coalition if I was an Iraqi.

Yes, I know what you mean. And I am sure alot of people are grateful. That doesn't put them in debt. Think about it...

You haven't liberated them if you hold them in debt. What if they don't like to bay this debt? Will you un-liberate them?

They will be safer too, you will be safer, the world is safer without Saddam and with a free Iraq.

Still U.S. choosed to eliminate itsthreat. If others benefit from it, you can only take pride from that. Not money. I didn't buy this service of yours - you can't charge me.

Not being privy to the information the President has I can't say for sure but I know their were many Iraqis that were in exhile from their country that wanted our help, the Kurds wanted our help. The government that was voted in by the people has asked for us to stay and help them. All that help isn't free.

I do think contractors should get paied of course. But this was still a primarily U.S. descision. Now operating with U.N. mandate I think the U.N. should take the cost for humanitarian help from that point on. (Maybe they do?)

You know better, if we get a drop of their resources we will be paying for it, we always have. The United States has never been a holder of other lands, talk to the older European countries for that.

This was ment to be a bit provocative - and it failed. You are correct.

What is an important enough reason? How much incredible environmental damage did thid guy have to do before the World acted against him? How many people, his own, did he have to kill? He tried to assaninate a former President of ours. He broke the cease-fire agreements numerous times for 12 years. He was actively working on and stockpiling extremely dangerous WMDs and was unstable enough to sell to terrorist states. And America finally got a President with enough nalls to do something about him.

I'm not much for discussing the reason for the war. Hundereds of posts covers that and I like the idea of looking forward. My only question was if a countrys way of handling its natural resources should be a valid reason for going to war.