Custom Search




Dinar Trade Speaks with Yorba Radio

Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Big Oil Cashes In on Iraq Slaughter

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,807

    Default Big Oil Cashes In on Iraq Slaughter

    The following contains selected portions of the article linked at the bottom. The whole article is worth the read, IMO.

    The part that stood out to me the most was the last highlighted section just before the end.

    According to the Post the Iraqi foreign minister concluded that “there was ‘not too much difference’ between Obama’s position and that of the presumptive Republican nominee...”


    Big oil cashes in on Iraq slaughter
    By Bill Van Auken
    20 June 2008


    ...For the over one million Iraqis killed and the millions more turned into refugees or made homeless in their own land, an overriding justification for their suffering has now been laid bare. It was to further enrich the already obscenely wealthy corporate executives and major shareholders of Big Oil...

    ...No-bid deals in the oil sector are not only “unusual,” under conditions in which oil demand is at an all-time high crude is selling for nearly $140 a barrel and energy-producing countries around the world—Russia, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Bolivia and others—are exerting a tighter national grip over their reserves. Such contracts cannot be explained outside of their being negotiated at the point of a gun.

    The deals have been structured as “service agreements” in order to circumvent restrictions that would have ensued under Iraq’s draft oil law, which the Iraqi parliament has proven unable to pass because of both nationalist opposition to foreign exploitation of the country’s reserves and disputes between the federal government and Iraqi regional entities over control of the oil fields.

    In reality, however, the two-year deals provide for payment to foreign companies in oil, opening up the possibility of substantial profits. Moreover, as one oil expert commented, they provide the “foothold” for the four major Western companies, paving the way to far more intensive exploitation.

    A total of 46 companies, including Lukoil of Russia, China National, India’s major oil company and others had memorandums of understanding with the Iraqi Oil Ministry, according to the Times.

    Yet none of them were allowed to bid for contracts. Instead, the deals are being handed over without any competition to Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Total and British Petroleum.

    The Times comments, “While the current contracts are unrelated to the companies’ previous work in Iraq, in a twist of corporate history for some of the world’s largest companies, all four oil majors that had lost their concessions in Iraq are now back.”

    This is all nonsense and lies. The new contracts have everything to do with the role played by these companies decades ago and their determination to wrest back the control they exercised before Iraq nationalized its oil industry and ejected the US and British oil giants in 1972, a move that ushered in a wave of nationalizations throughout the oil-producing countries....

    ...Yet, as the Times article notes, Russia’s Lukoil, which had been training Iraqi oil engineers free of charge, is being thrown out of an oilfield where it held a previously signed contract, in order to make way for Chevron and Total.

    The reality is that these contracts are the direct product of armed aggression. In the wake of the invasion, US troops seized control of the oilfields and secured the Oil Ministry in Baghdad, even as it left every other governmental and cultural institution to the mercy of the looters. It then selected Phillip Carroll, the former president of Shell Oil, to head up an “advisory board” to assume control over the ministry.

    As the Times delicately notes: “It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.”

    After Iraq’s infrastructure was shattered in the Persian Gulf War of 1991, the Clinton administration campaigned for punishing United Nations sanctions that choked off essential food and medical supplies and resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of additional lives.

    The critical strategic aim of these sanctions was to block the resumption of oil production and prevent the realization of contracts signed between the government of Saddam Hussein and foreign rivals of the big US and British companies, particularly Russian and Chinese producers as well as France’s Total.

    This was combined with stepped-up military attacks, as the Clinton administration hammered Iraq with cruise missiles in a series of strikes dubbed Operation Phoenix Scorpion, Operation Desert Thunder and Operation Desert Fox, all preludes to the ultimate invasion.

    At the same time, Clinton signed into law the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998,” leveling the charges of “weapons of mass destruction” that would be used to justify war less than three years later and declaring that US policy was “to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.”

    With the installation of the Bush administration, preparations for the armed takeover of Iraq began in earnest. Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act from a national energy task force chaired by Vice President Dick Cheney in early 2001 included a map of Iraq’s oilfields and a list of “foreign suitors for Iraqi oilfield contracts.”

    The imposition of the contracts for the four big oil firms has confirmed what the Iraq war was about from its conception—well before the September 11, 2001 attacks. The false claims about “weapons of mass destruction” and the invention of ties between Baghdad and Al Qaeda were pretexts for a war aimed at re-establishing semi-colonial control over Iraq and its oil wealth, thereby furthering the US drive for global hegemony....

    ...There is ample evidence that furthering the interests of the oil conglomerates and American imperialism as a whole by continuing the war and occupation in Iraq remains a consensus policy supported by Democrats and Republicans alike....

    The 2008 presidential election contest has been presented by the media and the two presidential candidates—Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain—as a choice between a US withdrawal from Iraq or continuing the war until victory....

    ...Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, in Washington for the talks on the SOFA, held discussions this week with both McCain and Obama on future US policy in the country.

    The Washington Post quoted Zebari Wednesday as saying that Obama had assured him that a Democratic administration would “not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or actions.” Obama explained, he said, that he “wants redeployment,” but that he “is not interested to pull all troops out. He wants a residual force” in Iraq to carry out anti-terrorist operations, protect US facilities and train Iraqi security forces.

    According to the Post the Iraqi foreign minister concluded that “there was ‘not too much difference’ between Obama’s position and that of the presumptive Republican nominee...”

    In other words, both candidates are determined to continue shedding blood—Iraqi and US alike—to advance the cause of securing Iraq’s oil reserves for Exxon-Mobil and the other energy corporations and to create a base of operations for new and even bloodier wars of aggression in the region, including against Iran.
    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/oil-j20.shtml
    The Lop. It's for real...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    431

    Default

    who is this guy(By Bill Van Auken) and hard to tell if this article is good.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spartakis View Post
    who is this guy(By Bill Van Auken) and hard to tell if this article is good.
    Don't know, but the following was one of the two things that stood out the most - to me anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sponson View Post
    According to the Post the Iraqi foreign minister concluded that “there was ‘not too much difference’ between Obama’s position and that of the presumptive Republican nominee...”
    The Lop. It's for real...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    14,216

    Default

    couldnt tell if this article was good?

    My god this guy was slamming the US and Britain, saying we went in with the sole intention of stealing their oil!

    Oh well, water off this ducks back. This is only the beginning of the war profiteering wave that will hit us. I will laugh in their faces, laughing all the way to the bank!
    I learned everything I need to know about Islam, on 9-11

    OBAMA SUCKS!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    7,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spartakis View Post
    who is this guy(By Bill Van Auken) and hard to tell if this article is good.
    Bill Van Auken
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search
    Bill Van Auken (born 1950) is a politician and activist for the Socialist Equality Party and was a presidential candidate in the U.S. election of 2004, announcing his candidacy on January 27, 2004. His running mate was Jim Lawrence. He came in 15th for the popular vote, receiving 1,857 votes. [1] In November 2006, Van Auken ran for the United States Senate seat held by Hillary Clinton[2]. He finished in fifth place, with 11,071 votes [3]

    Van Auken is a full time reporter for the World Socialist Web Site, and resides in New York City.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    eastern NC
    Posts
    3,268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Screaming Eagle View Post
    Bill Van Auken
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search
    Bill Van Auken (born 1950) is a politician and activist for the Socialist Equality Party and was a presidential candidate in the U.S. election of 2004, announcing his candidacy on January 27, 2004. His running mate was Jim Lawrence. He came in 15th for the popular vote, receiving 1,857 votes. [1] In November 2006, Van Auken ran for the United States Senate seat held by Hillary Clinton[2]. He finished in fifth place, with 11,071 votes [3]

    Van Auken is a full time reporter for the World Socialist Web Site, and resides in New York City.
    Just another narrow minded twit.....sorry bastard shouldn't be allowed to breath my oxygen ..........clueless.
    Panhead

    If God didn't want them sheared he wouldn't have made them sheep.........

    Washington is on the dollar bill........Lincoln is on the penny.......so it's only fitting to have Obama on the food stamp.........

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Grand Junkyard, CO
    Posts
    12,364

    Default

    So I guess you all are saying that there was never any back-room intention of profiteering off Iraq's oil and it's just a crazy coincidence that big western oil companies are moving in after 5 years.

    Not that I care. As far as Im concerned they should have taken their oil 3 years ago before it hit 140 bucks/bbl.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    eastern NC
    Posts
    3,268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geowhiz View Post
    So I guess you all are saying that there was never any back-room intention of profiteering off Iraq's oil and it's just a crazy coincidence that big western oil companies are moving in after 5 years.

    Not that I care. As far as Im concerned they should have taken their oil 3 years ago before it hit 140 bucks/bbl.
    JMO.....Oil does play a part in the big picture, but if it was just about oil we
    could have just taken it or made Iraq the next state with a lot less problems
    than what we're going through helping them rebuild their country.
    Setting up a Democratic nation in the ME will cause the demise of the likes of Iran and Syria in time.......
    Panhead

    If God didn't want them sheared he wouldn't have made them sheep.........

    Washington is on the dollar bill........Lincoln is on the penny.......so it's only fitting to have Obama on the food stamp.........

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    14,216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geowhiz View Post
    So I guess you all are saying that there was never any back-room intention of profiteering off Iraq's oil and it's just a crazy coincidence that big western oil companies are moving in after 5 years.

    Not that I care. As far as Im concerned they should have taken their oil 3 years ago before it hit 140 bucks/bbl.
    No, not saying that at all.
    Oil was, and is a big part of the picture. But we are not STEALING it. As of now we are only going in to get them back up to speed after years of neglect. Will these companies make a profit? Sure, why do it otherwise? And down the road, they stand a chance of making huge profits. But as far as oil is concerned, IMO we just want them to get more on the market......our market being first of course!
    I learned everything I need to know about Islam, on 9-11

    OBAMA SUCKS!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Grand Junkyard, CO
    Posts
    12,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by panhead View Post
    JMO.....Oil does play a part in the big picture, but if it was just about oil we
    could have just taken it or made Iraq the next state with a lot less problems
    than what we're going through helping them rebuild their country.
    Setting up a Democratic nation in the ME will cause the demise of the likes of Iran and Syria in time.......

    Ill buy your's and Howler's argument Panner!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    eastern NC
    Posts
    3,268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geowhiz View Post
    Ill buy your's and Howler's argument Panner!
    lol.....just imagine if Kerry(wanted to outlaw the combustible engine within two years) or Global warming Gore got elected.....or god forbid Billary or
    O'Barney (give hope a chance) gets elected......sheesh!
    Seems like we're lacking in candidates IMO.....far from the best or the brightest........scary all the way around.
    Panhead

    If God didn't want them sheared he wouldn't have made them sheep.........

    Washington is on the dollar bill........Lincoln is on the penny.......so it's only fitting to have Obama on the food stamp.........

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Grand Junkyard, CO
    Posts
    12,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by panhead View Post
    lol.....just imagine if Kerry(wanted to outlaw the combustible engine within two years) or Global warming Gore got elected.....or god forbid Billary or
    O'Barney (give hope a chance) gets elected......sheesh!
    Seems like we're lacking in candidates IMO.....far from the best or the brightest........scary all the way around.

    Time for a strong and serious third party candidate, not some moron like Perot or Nader, and I think a lot of Americans are starting to open up to that possibility. Just takes the right person. Hopefully in 4 years since neither candidate we have now is going to be able to handle what's coming down the pike.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    eastern NC
    Posts
    3,268

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by geowhiz View Post
    Time for a strong and serious third party candidate, not some moron like Perot or Nader, and I think a lot of Americans are starting to open up to that possibility. Just takes the right person. Hopefully in 4 years since neither candidate we have now is going to be able to handle what's coming down the pike.
    Concur......RV must be around the corner, I just agreed with Geo......lol
    Panhead

    If God didn't want them sheared he wouldn't have made them sheep.........

    Washington is on the dollar bill........Lincoln is on the penny.......so it's only fitting to have Obama on the food stamp.........

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Grand Junkyard, CO
    Posts
    12,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by panhead View Post
    Concur......RV must be around the corner, I just agreed with Geo......lol

    You know what they say. The enemy of your enemy and all that..

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,962

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Screaming Eagle View Post

    Bill Van Auken

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Bill Van Auken (born 1950) is a politician and activist for the Socialist Equality Party and was a presidential candidate in the U.S. election of 2004, announcing his candidacy on January 27, 2004. His running mate was Jim Lawrence. He came in 15th for the popular vote, receiving 1,857 votes. [1] In November 2006, Van Auken ran for the United States Senate seat held by Hillary Clinton[2]. He finished in fifth place, with 11,071 votes [3]

    Van Auken is a full time reporter for the World Socialist Web Site, and resides in New York City.

    We may flinch at him being a Socialist, even so, he makes some good points.
    Lets not be naive as to how the world (including the US) really works.

    If the War On Terror stayed on course Osama Bin Ladin would be dead, Afganistan would be secure
    THEN Saddam Insane would have been dealt with...Or perhaps Iran.
    The Government has the final say concerning the dinar

    http://www.investorsiraq.com/showthr...ies.&highlight=

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    7,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stout Hearted Man View Post
    We may flinch at him being a Socialist, even so, he makes some good points.
    Lets not be naive as to how the world (including the US) really works.

    If the War On Terror stayed on course Osama Bin Ladin would be dead, Afganistan would be secure
    THEN Saddam Insane would have been dealt with...Or perhaps Iran.
    I am not naive as to socialist agenda. What course are you refering to other than that which was taken. The whole of congress and the all of the political US was screaming for Bush to go into Iraq. If he had not they would still be screaming for his impeachment for failing to enforse our national security. They scream for him to go in and once there they scream because he did. Maybe you should take a look at how things work.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
---Joomla Templates Provided By Joomlage.com