[Jane of Arc]

The lies of the Bush Administration to take us to war in Iraq are well-documented and well-substantiated:

1. Weapons of Mass Destruction - LIE

2. Iraq Had Connections to Al-Qaeda -LIE

3. Sadam Was a Threat to the US - LIE

4. We Wanted to Bring Iraq Freedom - LIE

5. We want the oil. - BINGO!


The oil corporations finally have their oil ... "legally". Yeah, right.

Published on Wednesday, February 28, 2007 by the Inter Press Service
New Iraqi Oil Law Seen as Cover for Privatization
by Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON - The U.S.-backed Iraqi cabinet approved a new oil law Monday that is set to give foreign companies the long-term contracts and safe legal framework they have been waiting for, but which has rattled labor unions and international campaigners who say oil production should remain in the hands of Iraqis.

According to local labor leaders, transferring ownership to the foreign companies would give a further pretext to continue the U.S. occupation on the grounds that those companies will need protection.

Independent analysts and labor groups have also criticized the process of drafting the law and warned that that the bill is so skewed in favor of foreign firms that it could end up heightening political tensions in the Arab nation and spreading instability.

For example, it specifies that up to two-thirds of Iraq's known reserves would be developed by multinationals, under contracts lasting for 15 to 20 years.



http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0228-05.htm

[NeoCon Newbie]

http://www.operationiraqichildren.org/images/Forbes7.jpg
It's not the oil. We through out a dictator and know we are helping them rebuild. So Bush didn't lie so get your facts straight Jane.

[FDRfollower]

Oh my word! Newbie actually used THREE sentences!

Rebuild, ha ha ha! What a sick joke. Hospitals have no medicine, people drink sewerage, massive unemployment, barely any electricity, etc, etc. Wait, am I describing the US, or Iraq? :confused:

That was a nice staged propagandistic photo-op picture. All throughout the recent centuries, the various colonial empires have used similar messages to convince everyone back home that "we" are out there civilizing those backward, primitive peoples.

Maybe Newbie is really a neo-con computer program that spouts randumb pro-white house lines?

http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Everything_Else/Trash_and_Garbage/Garbage_man.gif

[haus]

more stunning photographic evidence of our successes:
http://www.spanishladyranch.com/images/southpark.jpg

[Lionhearted]

@ haus:lol:

Newbie,
"Through out a dictator"? I think the word you want is threw.

[Jane of Arc]

Newbie-dobie-do,

Bush lied and lied and lied and lied AND thousands of human beings have died and died and died and died.

You want the facts?

1. Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, U.S. oil companies were shut out of Iraq's oil industry with the exception of limited marketing contracts.


In March 2001 (before the war); Cheney's Energy Task Force was working on a series of maps and lists outlining Iraq's entire oil productive capacity and the foreign companies lined-up to cash-in. The task force included representatives from all of the major U.S. oil and energy service companies, including Halliburton, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips.

The U.S. State Department's Oil and Energy Working Group began meeting in December 2002. By April 2003, the group recommended that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war," using PSAs.

Since then, the Bush administration has invaded Iraq, ousted Saddam Hussein, put the pre-existing oil contracts on hold, and has nearly succeeded in a four-year long venture to restructure the Iraqi oil industry for itself and its corporate allies.


2. In the new Iraqi law U.S. oil companies will have the right to explore, produce, control, and have guaranteed revenue from the second largest oil reserves in the world.

3. Iraq's new oil system would be utterly unique in the Middle East and in virtually any oil rich nation. For example, Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia all maintain nationalized oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development.

4. According to the new law foreign companies do not have to reinvest any of their earnings in the Iraqi economy, hire or train Iraqi workers, transfer useful technology, or partner with Iraqi companies.

5. The people of Iraq and our poor soldiers are paying the ultimate price for this corporate oil-grab. It really is blood for oil ... but none of the corporate fat cats will lose any blood. Without the needed income from oil revenues to rebuild its economy, Iraq will continue to be a destabilized country with unemployment wavering between 60 to75%. And that makes it all the more easy to steal their oil, now doesn't it Newbie.

Sorry, but it's STILL the oil, stupid.

http://www.priceofoil.org/

PS - Newbie, why don't you answer my question to you about the demolition of Building 7 on 9-11-2001? Please answer it.

[Lionhearted]

Newbie,
If you've a mind for some reading, which I doubt, you may find this interesting, in a warped sick kind of way:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
The complete document can be found here (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm).
(Emphasis mine)
Something from post 9-11? Nope this is a letter that PNAC wrote to the President Clinton on January 26, 1998! The signatories of this letter read like a Who's Who of the current administration: Elliott Abrams, Richard L. Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter W. Rodman, Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Robert B. Zoellick.

These are really scary folks, a group of war mongers with mostly no military experience among them (don't believe? Read their Statement of Principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) and check out the signatories on that little gem.)

These are the same folks that brought us this classic piece of war mongering rhetoric entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses (http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf). Besides the well known New Pearl Harbor quote ("Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.") this literary classic also includes stated goals for our military as; "perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions";deter rise of a great power competitor; Defense Department control of cyberspace & outerspace; turning the Air Force into a "global first-strike force", permanent army deployment in the Middle East;and "advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool". A really really scary document composed by really really scary people, many of whom employed (or formerly employed) in some form or another by this administration.
If you bother to read any of this you'll notice the recurring statement of "America's interests". What exactly do you feel that means, particulary where the Middle East is concerned? Sand?

For Pete's sake, boy stop drinking the Kool-Aid and think for yourself.

[Michael DeM]

It's not the oil. We through out a dictator and know we are helping them rebuild. So Bush didn't lie so get your facts straight Jane.

I don't know about you, but it doesn't make much sense to me to kill, injure, and destroy the society of the very people you are trying to save. And why "through out" Saddam Hussein? There are plenty of dictators in the world. What is it that made Iraq so special? Think about it, man.

[NeoCon Newbie]

I don't know about you, but it doesn't make much sense to me to kill, injure, and destroy the society of the very people you are trying to save. And why "through out" Saddam Hussein? There are plenty of dictators in the world. What is it that made Iraq so special? Think about it, man.One at a time Michael and Saddam was an immidiate threat Kim Jong Ill isn't we dont have to fight them they are going to starve to death and they are not a real threat as of know. We trade with China so they dont want to fight us Cuba is crap they have no threat at all thats why Mike.

[Jane of Arc]

Newbie,

I've asked you now for 2 weeks to explain the demolition of Building 7 on 9-11. Maybe this timeline will help you understand what really happened:


1. Spring 2001: Larry Silverstein purchases the lease of the World Trade Center Complex for 15 million dollars.

2. Summer 2001: Larry Silverstein upgrades his insurance policy coverage and makes sure it covers "teroriist attacks".

3. 9-11-2001: Larry Silverstein is on videotape giving the order "pull it". And immediately, in demolition fashion, Building 7 pancakes to the ground. He owned the 2 towers also. If Building 7 had controlled demolition IN PLACE, so could the 2 towers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs&search=%22pull%20it%22%20silverstein


Subsequently, Larry Silverstein was paid 3.5 billion. He didn't think it was enough and went back to court and sued, claiming there were TWO terrorist attacks and was rewarded 7 BILLION DOLLARS. He paid 15 million and in a few years earned 7 BILLION ... not a bad return on an investment!



What does this have to do with the war on Iraq and it's oil? Everything. It was the new Pearl Harbor ... it was this fake attack on America that allowed some extremely greedy globalists to go after the oil.

[Michael DeM]

One at a time Michael and Saddam was an immidiate threat Kim Jong Ill isn't we dont have to fight them they are going to starve to death and they are not a real threat as of know. We trade with China so they dont want to fight us Cuba is crap they have no threat at all thats why Mike.

And where do you come to the conclusion that Saddam was an immediate threat? In what way was he a danger to the United States?

[Cummnzpowr]

They believe he had weapons that would shoot from the middle east all the way across the atlantic ocean..lol :rolleyes:

Jane:EXCELLENT post about Silverstein people will still deny it though..that is so clear the average neanderthal would even get it;)

[Jane of Arc]

Thanks Cummnzpowr! Actually, the people who believe that 9-11 was a possible inside job is up drastically from last year. Just like the JFK assasination the 'official' facts just don't make sense. It's a growing awareness. It takes time because we have a corrupted press.

[Jumpin Jupiter]

I dont believe for one second that the war in Iraq was for oil. Just because Bush is tied into the oil companies doesnt mean that he would go half way around the world, using our troops to fight a war just to get a few gallons of Iraqi oil. He could have drilled in Alaska and gotten more than that.

Before the war, Iraq was producer # 13 of the worlds oil, and I havent heard of any Iraqi oil tankers coming to port here in the US.

That post about Building #7 and Silverstein, its the first time I have ever heard of that. Why would NONE of the news media report on somehthing like this, unless it wasnt legit. Or, maybe they did and I wasnt home?:o

[MAGI]

Jumpin Jupiter,
I realize you're just getting into searching ALL that is going on in the world, but, please read about PNAC. It's no secret.........it is ALL about controlling oil in the Mid East, (as well as everywhere else in the world, like Venezuela), without a doubt!

Why haven't we done so much more to develop alternative energy? Conservation?
Carbon free energy? Because of the powers that be, they are making Bazillions off OIL!

By the way, the oilfield in Alaska will take years to develop, is not easy like Iraq, and will be very costly! It is such a small amount, the risk to our environment is not worth it!

Iraq has the second largest oil reserve in the WORLD! Since the first Gulf War Hussien was sanctioned by the U.N. The U.S. was absolutely behind the UN then. Hussein was isolated, controlled, and Iraq poor, because of that. He wasn't able to develop and produce Iraq's very rich oilfields, easiest in the world to harvest by the way................ because of the sanctions.

Just before the war he was sneaking oil "out the back door" and working with a few countries in Europe that were willing to help him, because they, of course were after OIL and the unlimited money they'd earn from development as well.

Please look at what is happening in Iraq with oil deals right at the moment!

The OPEC consolidation was threatened because of competition.........long story there.....

I know it's a sad day when we learn the leaders in our country are not what we expect them to be. We, sorry to say, are not that wonderful Nation we once were. I learned that personally during the Viet Nam War. It's all written in history, there to read. Perhaps you only need to type in, cause of Viet Nam War, to easily get that info, on, say, Google?

Further, look at the videos you can find about 9/11 right on this site. Don't make conclusions before checking actual evidence. Neo Con Newbie can't even watch a video for gosh sakes! Let us know if that doesn't lead you to question what that is all about. It just makes me sick to think about it!

Some in the the media are very threatened by this administration. Main stream media is owned and controlled by corporate America.

Some, however, are slowly turning around (a very little bit though) because everything has become so obvious............

I will be glad to mention some media outlets that are telling factual truth, if you really are seriously searching for truth, Jumpin Jupiter.

[Jane of Arc]

Hi Jumpin' J,


War is big, BIG business JJ. And there's no bigger business on the planet than oil. Besides fueling our cars, fueling our homes, fueling our industries, fueling our agriculture, fueling our entire global economy ... it is the basic ingredient in everything from fertilizer to plastic. Our society would collapse without oil. AND ... it's finite. There is just so much liquid gold left on earth that is easily accessible. Whoever controls the oil on the planet has enormous power for the next century. The US needed Iraq strategically for the oil and establishing permanent military bases there to police the region.

Here's an article from the Washington 'globalist' think-tank, the Brookings Institute called, "How Much Oil Does Iraq Have?" you should read:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/luft20030512.htm

About Building 7 ... keep digging my friend, if you're interested in truth, protecting the Constitution and democracy. This has nothing to do with right vs. left or conservative vs. liberal. This has to do with the American people vs. the small group of elites that control our country. If Hillary gets "elected" (God forbid) ... did you ever think there's something really wrong when the list of Presidents reads: Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton?

[Jane of Arc]

Bush followers still want to believe that it was the US responsibility to free the Iraqi people of a terrible dictator, Saddam Hussein (whom we supported; gave weapons, gas and tons of money while he gassed people). And that is why we invaded Iraq. To spread freedom and democracy! (Even though we're very good friends with worse dictators. It's a long list.)

Let's suppose that's true. Let's suppose our government cares SO much about the Iraqi people that they just had to help them out. Then why are US and English corporations getting oil rights to Iraq's oil??? Won't the Iraqi people need that oil money to rebuild?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/opinion/13juhasz.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/opinion/13juhasz.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)


In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.
Since the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration has been aggressive in shepherding the oil law toward passage. It is one of the president’s benchmarks for the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, a fact that Mr. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Gen. William Casey, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and other administration officials are publicly emphasizing with increasing urgency.

[FDRfollower]

One at a time Michael and Saddam was an immidiate threat Kim Jong Ill isn't we dont have to fight them they are going to starve to death and they are not a real threat as of know. We trade with China so they dont want to fight us Cuba is crap they have no threat at all thats why Mike.


Michael was a threat? Michael Savage is an A-hole and a lunatic, but the only threat he represents is to everyones sanity.

Geez, I've seen 9 year olds who could write better than this guy.

[Thelonious]

Isn't it great how democracy is flourishing all across the middle east??



sorry. that was a little sarcastic.

[Thelonious]

Clinton was a BAD president. He NEVER should have fired those people from the travel office




LOL.

[FDRfollower]

Magi and Jane D'arc. I would ask you to broaden your horizons somewhat in order to avoid simplistic explanations as "its just about greedy people who want to control the oil", as that's all it is. A good place for you to start is

THE GREAT GAME (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Game-Struggle-Central-Kodansha/dp/1568360223) and wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game)

which I'm halfway through right now. After all, that area of the world was a scene of surrogate warfare between various imperialistic interests, loooong before oil was an issue. While Hopkirk stops at the beginning of the 20th century, its interesting to think, that indeed, the "great game" is still afoot, when you have "intellectuals" like Bernard Lewis hanging around pushing his global empire games through various neo-cons like Zbigniew Brzezinski who stated that it was our policy to use Muslim fundamentalists as a battering ram against the Soviets. Today, what do you see? The US, led by the Brits into a Peloponnesian style war, while the financial locusts (mostly centered in London and British colonies) stripping the economy bare through the hedge funds.

[MAGI]

Well, FDRfollower,
I've just read we have, I believe it is 730, bases throughout the world. The U.S. managed to build a giant one and undoubtably others in Iraq, since 2003. Yes, they are handy stepping stones to other lucrative countries in that part of the world.

Bin Laden was polically successfull in getting our bases out of Saudi Arabia, and the neo cons need bases in the ME.......as well as access to development and a share of profit of natural resources.


For sure, it is about having pathways to other counties in the area, as well as control of the people who hold power in as many countries throughout the world as possible (which would enable profit from their natural resources and a cheap labor force which can be exploited as well, to the profit of, "cough, cough," Global Corporations), but things are not working quite to plan, I believe.

I know Zbigniew Brzezinski has long been a thorn in your side as Geo Shultz and I often wondered about that, because he, Brzezinski, worked for President Carter, a person I always admired. :confused:

So, O.K., I'll try to get into the book you're suggesting, but I'd rather you give me a short synopsis...................:)
I do very much trust your perception and conclusions.

How 'bout South America, eh?

[Jane of Arc]

Dear FDR,

My horizons are very broad, sir. I am also well-read on the topic and don't offer simplistic explanations.

With that said, explain the altruism of our government and international corporations pushing for domination of the Iraqi oil reserves.


PS - Well said, MAGI.

[FDRfollower]

Well, FDRfollower,
I've just read we have, I believe it is 730, bases throughout the world. The U.S. managed to build a giant one and undoubtably others in Iraq, since 2003. Yes, they are handy stepping stones to other lucrative countries in that part of the world.

Bin Laden was polically successfull in getting our bases out of Saudi Arabia, and the neo cons need bases in the ME.......as well as access to development and a share of profit of natural resources.

For sure, it is about having pathways to other counties in the area, as well as control of the people who hold power in as many countries throughout the world as possible (which would enable profit from their natural resources and a cheap labor force which can be exploited as well, to the profit of, "cough, cough," Global Corporations), but things are not working quite to plan, I believe.

I know Zbigniew Brzezinski has long been a thorn in your side as Geo Shultz and I often wondered about that, because he, Brzezinski, worked for President Carter, a person I always admired. :confused:

So, O.K., I'll try to get into the book you're suggesting, but I'd rather you give me a short synopsis...................:)
I do very much trust your perception and conclusions.

How 'bout South America, eh?

Hi Magi. Think of Zbig as Jimmie Carters Rasputin:eek:. While Carter might have had good tendencies (Israeli/Palestinian negotiations for example), Zbig always tended toward an old style British geopolitical games, along with racist technological aparthid toward the developing sector. A lot of our problems in Mexico come from decisions he made to crush Mexico's economy instead of allowing them to develop. He, Sam Huntington and Kissinger aren't really that different since they came out of William Yandell Elliots neo-fuedal movement out at Harvard. Zbig is the one who started the Trilateral commision, long a byword for globalist policy making, and of course, as I mentioned, the creation of a huge army of radical extremist Muslims, used as cannon fodder in cold war geopolitics, and let loose on the world to wreck havoc for the globalists. Perfect for the suspension of the Bill of Rights and civil liberties in the name of fighting "terrorism".

Ok, a short synopsis of Hopkirks book is to bring to life, (and he does it marvelously) the main players both the policy makers and on-the ground agents on the British and Russian sides as the two expanding empires clashed in Central Asia. The Russian empire expanding southward, and the British empire trying to protect their possessions in India. I'm up to about the 1840's now where the British suffered a horrible defeat in Afghanistan after their first major attempt to occupy that part of the world. If you're into spy novels, you'll really be impressed, because all the people he talks about were real. And of course, the consequences are important, because look where we are!

The bigger issue, is beginning in the 20th century, is how the pro-british faction, through assassination, subverted our true national mission into serving the interests of the British empire, with an interuption during FDR's time, and with Ike.

C'mon Jane, our government certainly won't benefit from what Cheney does in Southwest Asia. Only the financial interests of Wall St. and London.

A truely altruistic policy of our government, would be to make agreements with the other oil producing nations governments to fix the price of oil at an agreed upon price, periodically changed as is needed, instead of the current usery/speculation driven "markets". But as we've seen, governments who attempt to use resources for the benefit of their nations get called "undemocratic" and coups run against them.

[Jane of Arc]

FDR says: C'mon Jane, our government certainly won't benefit from what Cheney does in Southwest Asia. Only the financial interests of Wall St. and London.

You miss the obvious FDR. OUR GOVERNMENT is in bed with big business. PUH-LEEZE! Corporate money pays for our Congress to get "elected". OUR GOVERNMENT listens to lobbyists before the people. OUR GOVERNMENT has stock in these big coporations. OUR GOVERNMENT doesn't benefit? HOGWASH!

[MAGI]

IMHO, the bushcabal, including Carlyle and the like, wants supreme power of the WORLD (no Trilateral or Bi or howevermany/lateral ), and will share nothing but profit (which they weren't able to hide) to their stock investors.

Methinks, there's going to be a very big HAVEN in Paraguay in the very near future................................

:twisted:

[Mr. Anderson]

We are all pretty well-educated here. I'm sure most of us have read Brzezinski. We've read up on the Trilateral Commission, as well as the Bilderberg Group, as well as PNAC, as well as the Eastern Establishment, etc. We all understand the influence of the world elite who use the governments, the intelligence agencies and the militaries of the world to shape global events. They are real individuals. Really, really, really rich and powerful individuals who have a vested interest in the outcome of circumstance.

Is it the greed and power of these elites that's behind controlling the last oil fields on earth?

Of course not. They are cute-as-a-button, little baby cupcakes! :binkybaby:

[FDRfollower]

You miss the obvious FDR. OUR GOVERNMENT is in bed with big business. PUH-LEEZE! Corporate money pays for our Congress to get "elected". OUR GOVERNMENT listens to lobbyists before the people. OUR GOVERNMENT has stock in these big coporations. OUR GOVERNMENT doesn't benefit? HOGWASH!

Are you restricting your view of government to just lawmakers?

I had more in mind, the day to day wage earner who caries on the functions of government, the beurocrats and civil servants, the guy who inspects the meat packers, the guy who ensures that the roads are maintained, the people who maintains the library of congress, your average school teacher, the firefighter, the lady who mails your social security check, and so on and so forth. Does our government have the neccessary revenue from these business deals to carry out the basic functions of running the nation? Its in that sense, that OUR government does not benefit. Short-sighted and small minded Congressmen who take the path of least resistance don't benefit either despite a little monetary gain.

[Jane of Arc]

Thanks for relating your definition of government. I was indeed referring, not restricting, my viewpoint to the definition provided, for example, by the Cambridge Dictionary: (1) the group of people who officially control a country. I think that's the common use of the word in any and most conversation. When people refer to the government they usually don't mean the floor sweepers, FDR ... you engaging stickler you! :)

[Jumpin Jupiter]

You miss the obvious FDR. OUR GOVERNMENT is in bed with big business. PUH-LEEZE! Corporate money pays for our Congress to get "elected". OUR GOVERNMENT listens to lobbyists before the people. OUR GOVERNMENT has stock in these big coporations. OUR GOVERNMENT doesn't benefit? HOGWASH!


I dont wonder if there is a way to "get to these corporate people". What kind of backlash could be given to the corporate heads that could give them a wake up call? (without the obvious violence). I'll have to ponder on that for a while.:D

[MAGI]

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh............

Why don't we tax them as Middle America is taxed, at the very least? ;)

How about putting back tariffs (to balance trade relationships) on all the goodies made in other countries at exploited wages that we now import, instead of producing in Our U.S. of A.? :(

Quoting Thom Hartman in his book "Screwed" page 179:

This is not a new idea, by the way-it's how America has protected its economy from the founding of this nation right up until Clinton signed NAFTA and GATT. The first law imposing tariffs was in place before the Constitution was ratified in 1789. Tariffs represented 100 percent of federal government revenues from the founding of this nation until around the time of the Civil War and about a third of our total federal revenues up to World War 1. They were still a major source of revenue right into the 1980s, when Reagan took a whack at them.

How about taking away their (corporations) right to set up offshore to avoid paying taxes to Our U.S.of A.? :sunny:


How about calling our Congressmen everyday and telling them we want Campaign Finance Reform........to get corporate control (all the money for advertising their propaganda) away from selecting OUR political candidates?

pssssst (don't tell them outright the reason though)..................... :0

We then will FINALLY have Government OF The People, BY The People..............FOR The People .....................once again

It's getting late........but WE THE PEOPLE still have the power to do this!

[Jane of Arc]

THE IRAQ WAR IS A SUCCESS!!!

The War on Iraq has created a wonderful price-squeeze on oil and Big Oil and Big Business love it!

Oil today is $57. a barrel.

Before Bush and the NeoCons 'took' office it was $18. a barrel.

Halliburton stock has tripled to $64. a share since the war began.

Exxon-Mobil reported a record $10 billion profit last quarter, the largest of any corporation in history.


Mission Accomplished!

[Thelonious]

Thom Hartman is a very clever guy. I agree with him on almost everything. He is, however really wrong about protectionism. Look at the countries that have had the highest tarifs over the last 50 years. You will find that all of them are incredibly poor countries.
Look at what happened when the European counties started lowering tarifs between themselves (the EU, for all the hoopla, is really just a huge free trade zone, one that Hartman aparently thinks has caused massive suffering. It hasn't.), nothing but solid economic growth for 50 years. Enormous numbers of Irish, Spanish, Portugese lifted out of poverty. (These used to be very poor countries. Not since free trade).
Nafta and Cafta are NOT perfect. They are far from it. But free trade as a concept is not bad just because one or two very long complicated agreements so full of exceptions and special cases with many glaring ommisions have not brought instant heaven.

[Jane of Arc]

Hi Thelonius,

I'd love to hear more about your views on free trade. Please expound! :sunny:

But, how does that apply to this thread, "It's the OIL, Stupid"?

[MAGI]

Thom Hartman is a very clever guy. I agree with him on almost everything. He is, however really wrong about protectionism. Look at the countries that have had the highest tarifs over the last 50 years. You will find that all of them are incredibly poor countries.
Look at what happened when the European counties started lowering tarifs between themselves (the EU, for all the hoopla, is really just a huge free trade zone, one that Hartman aparently thinks has caused massive suffering. It hasn't.), nothing but solid economic growth for 50 years. Enormous numbers of Irish, Spanish, Portugese lifted out of poverty. (These used to be very poor countries. Not since free trade).
Nafta and Cafta are NOT perfect. They are far from it. But free trade as a concept is not bad just because one or two very long complicated agreements so full of exceptions and special cases with many glaring ommisions have not brought instant heaven.

I think Thom Hartman would argue for Fair Trade to establish the employment we once had in our U.S.A. once again.

Balance, there is a middle ground, I argue. Some of our States are so poor, they're selling their highways, bridges, infrastructure.................. because they fear to further tax us (with good reason, because of stagnant and
lost wages due to jobs going overseas).

Have you read Hartman's book, Screwed? It's small, but my first source for information these days.

Hartman's introduction "Profit before People" is most telling of what The Cons (Reagan, the two Bushes and Clinton) have brought us to.

He shows the percentage of Foreign Ownership of Specific U.S. Industries on pages 23 & 24.
Page 25, The last three chapters:

But it really began in full force here, with Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton. and here is where its fruits are most obvious. For more than two hundred years, America was the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world. Today-after nearly three decades of the cons "economic and insane "free trade" policies-we're the most indebted nation in the history of the world.

We've gone from being -pre-Reagan- the world's largest exporter of finished goods and the world's largest importer of raw materials to being - just over the past decade - the exact opposite. We used to import iron ore, make steel, make cars, and export them all around the world. Now Canadian and Mexican and German companies mine raw materials from mines they own in the United States, ship the ore to their nations or to China, manufacture the finished goods, and sell those goods back to us - with dollars we give them in exchange for another hundred billion dollars' worth of America every year.

There's no reason to let the cons screw us over. We must not stand by while our democacy becomes a corporacracy, serving an elite group of billionaire CEOs. There is another way-and we've done it before. Thomas Jefferson knew how to build a middle class. Franklin Roosevelt knew how. We can do it, too. We recreate the America that built the middle class my dad entered, the middle class in which he raised me.

I think it begins on #30 on this thread, Jane of Arc.
What can we do about powerfull corporations............
:sunny:

[-V-]

the building 7 posts were moved to the building 7 thread.

[Wafflepudding]

As I said before, a big part of it is for the oil, yes, but it's not just about the oil. It's about the arms sales, it's about the reconstruction contracts, it's about the great geopolitical game that's been going on for a long, long time, it's about middle eastern fanatics values and American conservative values (which are very close), it's about our whole civilization still locked in resource wars, and it's also about the "us vs them" mentality that permeated every society that commited atrocious acts of war. It's much, MUCH more complex than "It's the oil", and I think that's what FDRFollower was alluding to Jane.

[Jane of Arc]

Dear Puddin',

You say the War on Iraq is about the arm sales.

We wouldn't be able to manufacture weapons without oil.

You say it's about the reconstruction contracts.

None of the corporations reaping rewards from Iraq would be able to manufacture goods, to do business, fuel their factories or travel to Iraq without oil.

You say, "it's about our whole civilization still locked in resource wars."

Yes, indeedy, my young Wafflette! I believe you are 100% correct.

Saying, "It's the Oil, Stupid" in reference to the Iraq War is dead right. The human race has reached an apex as it scrambles for global domination. Whoever has the remaining easily attainable oil essentially controls the rest of the world until (1) we develop other technology to replace oil (2) we revert to pre-industrialized civilization.

OIL IS LIFE BLOOD.

But, I don't want to go on another long diatribe about peak oil when it's all archived here on POL. I'm sure you've studied peak oil, right Puddin'? If not, let me know. :sunny:

[Wafflepudding]

Dear Jane:

I got three worlds for you: Age of imperialism.

We as a civilization had manufactured firearms, cannons and battleships way before the appearance of the first refinery. And man will continue to manufacture weapons to kill as long as there's a need (like self defense) or a motivation (like profit). Multinational corporations that wield massive influence in national governments existed before oil and will exist after it. I would say, in fact, that even if we ran out of oil in a few years and living conditions and technology regressed, chances are we would return to the 19th century, not the feudal age but the age of (say it with me!) IMPERIALISM. Even if we ran out of oil, corporations would have wanted to forcefully open Iraqi markets; This would only provide different motives for these wars. If it's all about the oil, why wouldn't running out of oil stop these conflicts?

Because, at the risk of oversimplifying the issue: It's not about the oil, it's about global lassez faire capitalism and the strong link between political and economic power.

[Jane of Arc]

Dear Pudding,

Saying, "It's the OIL, Stupid" is tongue-in-cheek and means all those things. The "Stupid" part gives it away.

OIL = MONEY = POWER = SURVIVAL of the CORPORATE/ MILITARY COMPLEX = GLOBAL DOMINANCE

It means the War on Iraq is ECONOMIC! It means it's about corporate profit! It means it's about global lassez faire capitalism. It means it's about everything your talking about. It means it's about imperialism. YES! OBVIOUSLY.

The point of the thread was to say it was about these things and NOT about:


(1) Spreading democracy to Iraq

(2) Saving the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator

(3) Weapons of mass destruction

(4) And all the lies the NeoCons told so they could imperialistically go to war to steal Iraq's oil.

[Wafflepudding]

Alrighty then

[MAGI]

Alrighty then

:D

Bwhahahaha,
Love you both, Jane of Arc & WP

[Wafflepudding]

Actually I've been thinking about it for a few days now, and there wouldn't BE a war for oil if America as a whole didn't consume so much oil.

So while the corporations corrupt our government and manipulate the world, who's giving them the funds with which to do so?

Sucks to think about it.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

There are other technologies available to humanity right here, right now, but to perpetuate wealth, power and control through the monetary system people "believe" in and that corporations own, we have technology that runs on oil. Thanks to Jane's posting, I have found a CITGO gas station nearby, and for the first time, beginning today, Hugo Chavez rather than Corporate Chevron will receive my money for his use in the care and welbeing of the people of Venezuela. VIVA HUGO CHAVEZ! YEAH!

[MAGI]

I haven't time to fully read and Hi Lite this article right now, but this needs to register here..............

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=192709

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2002-2003, oil was seldom mentioned. Yes, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz did describe the country as afloat "on a sea of oil" (which might fund any American war and reconstruction program there); and, yes, on rare occasions, the President did speak reverentially of preserving "the patrimony of the people of Iraq" -- by which he meant not cuneiform tablets or ancient statues in the National Museum in Baghdad, but the country's vast oil reserves, known and suspected. And yes, oil did make it prominently onto the signs of war protestors at home and abroad.

Everybody who was anybody in Washington and the media, not to speak of the punditocracy and think-tank-ocracy of our nation knew, however, that those bobbing signs among the millions of antiwar demonstrators that said "No Blood for Oil" were just so simplistic, if not utterly simpleminded. Oil news, as was only proper, was generally relegated to the business pages of our papers, or even more properly -- since it was at best but one modest factor among so very many in Bush administration calculations -- roundly ignored. Admittedly, the first "reconstruction" contract the administration issued was to Halliburton to rescue that country's "patrimony," its oil fields, from potential self-destruction during the invasion, and the key instructions -- possibly just about the only instructions -- issued to U.S. troops after taking Baghdad were to guard the Oil Ministry. Then again, everyone knew this crew had their idiosyncrasies.

Ever since, oil has played a remarkably small part in the consideration of, coverage of, or retrospective assessments of the invasion, occupation, and war in Iraq (unless you lived on the Internet). To give but a single example, the index to Thomas E. Ricks' almost 500-page bestseller, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, has but a single relevant entry: "oil exports and postwar reconstruction, Wolfowitz on, 98." Yet today, every leading politician of either party is strangely convinced that the key "benchmark" the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki must pass to prove its mettle is the onerous oil law, now stalled in Parliament, that has been forced upon it by the Bush administration. In the piece below, Tomdispatch regular Michael Schwartz follows the oil slicks deep into the Gulf of Catastrophe in Iraq. He offers a sweeping view of the role oil, the prize of prizes in Iraq, has played in Bush administration considerations and what role the new oil law is likely to play in that country's future. Tom


The Struggle over Iraqi Oil
Eyes Eternally on the Prize
By Michael Schwartz :

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=192709

[MAGI]

Sun May 20, 6:28 PM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070520/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

BAGHDAD - Bombings killed seven U.S. soldiers in Baghdad and a southern city, the U.S. military said Sunday, and the country's Sunni vice president spoke out against a proposed oil law, clouding the future of a key benchmark for assuring continued U.S. support for the government.


Six of the soldiers were killed Saturday in a bombing in western Baghdad, the military said in a statement. Their interpreter was also killed.

The other soldier died in a blast Saturday in Diwaniyah, a mostly Shiite city 80 miles south of the capital where radical Shiite militias operate. Two soldiers were wounded in that attack, the military said.

Those deaths brought the number of American troops killed in Iraq since Friday to at least 15 — eight of them in Baghdad. So far, at least 71 U.S. forces have died in Iraq this month — most of them from bombs.

Elsewhere, several explosions were heard from the area around the Green Zone in central Baghdad, but it was unclear if any were inside the U.S.-controlled area, which has increasingly come under mortar and rocket fire. The American military referred questions about the explosions to the U.S. Embassy, which did not respond.

In recent months, U.S. officials have been stepping up pressure on Iraq's religiously and ethnically based parties to reach agreements on a range of political and economic initiatives to encourage national reconciliation and bring an end to the fighting.

Progress in meeting those benchmarks is considered crucial to continued U.S. support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government at a time when Democrats in Congress are pressing for an end to the war. Those benchmarks include enactment of a new law to manage the country's vast oil wealth and distribute revenues among the various groups.

But prospects for quick approval received a setback Sunday when the country's Sunni vice president told reporters in Jordan that the proposed legislation gives too many concessions to foreign oil companies.

"We disagree with the production sharing agreement," Tariq al-Hashemi told reporters on the sidelines of an international conference hosted by the Geneva-based World Economic Forum. "We want foreign oil companies, and we have to lure them into Iraq to learn from their expertise and acquire their technology, but we shouldn't give them big privileges."


The bill also faces opposition from the Kurds, who have demanded greater control of oil fields in Kurdish areas. Kurdish parties control 58 of the 275 parliament seats.

Iraq's Cabinet signed off on the oil bill in February and sent it to parliament, a move that the Bush administration hailed as a major sign of political progress in Iraq. But parliament has yet to consider the legislation.

Al-Hashemi is among three leaders of a Sunni bloc that controls 44 seats. Together, the Kurds and the Sunnis have enough legislative muscle to delay passage of the measure, which is likely to draw opposition from some Shiite lawmakers, too.

In another political setback, the leader of Iraq's largest Shiite party, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, has been diagnosed with lung cancer and was headed to Iran for treatment, party officials said Sunday. Al-Hakim's absence is likely to create disarray in his Supreme Islamic Council in Iraq — a Shiite party the U.S. is counting on to push through benchmark reforms.

News of al-Hakim's diagnosis came only hours after another top Iraqi leader, President Jalal Talabani, flew to the U.S. for a medical checkup.

skip


Talabani has played an important role in trying to bridge the gap between Sunni Arabs and Shiites, and his absence is also likely to complicate efforts to forge national unity.

In the latest violence, at least 55 people were killed or found dead Sunday, including 24 people found slain execution-style in Baghdad. Nineteen of them were recovered in western areas of Baghdad, where the U.S.-led security crackdown has failed so far to halt sectarian death squads.

A suicide bomber exploded a tanker truck near an Iraqi police checkpoint outside a market west of Baghdad, killing at least two officers and injuring nine people, police said. Police said they suspected chlorine gas was used in the attack in a town just outside the turbulent city of Ramadi, 70 miles west of Baghdad. But the U.S. military said it had no reports chlorine was used.

A bomb planted under a parked car exploded near a Shiite mosque in the central Baghdad neighborhood of Bab al-Sharji, police said. The blast killed two civilians, wounded 10 and damaged nearby houses and the mosque, police said.

Several hours later, a mortar shell landed in a commercial area in central Baghdad, killing one person and wounding three, police said.

Also Sunday, a U.S. spokesman said troops killed a Shiite extremist believed to have masterminded a brazen January attack in Karbala in which four U.S. soldiers were killed.

Azhar al-Duleimi was killed Friday in a raid in north Baghdad, Maj. Gen., William Caldwell told CNN's "Late Edition." Caldwell said U.S. troops had been pursuing al-Duleimi "relentlessly" since the Jan. 20 attack, in which English-speaking gunmen wearing U.S. military uniforms and carrying American weapons attacked a joint military command headquarters in Karbala.

The attackers killed one soldier and abducted four others, later shooting them all to death.

"You know, anybody who kidnaps an American soldier and murders them, we're going to continue to hunt down. And that's exactly what we've been doing with this guy," Caldwell said of al-Duleimi.

Caldwell spoke as thousands of soldiers continue their search for three comrades abducted in a May 12 ambush south of Baghdad. Four other U.S. soldiers and one Iraqi were killed.

:banghead:

:angry:

[MAGI]

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkid=35984

What Congress Really Approved: Benchmark No. 1: Privatizing Iraq's Oil for US Companies
By Ann Wright
t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor

Saturday 26 May 2007

On Thursday, May 24, the US Congress voted to continue the war in Iraq. The members called it "supporting the troops." I call it stealing Iraq's oil - the second largest reserves in the world. The "benchmark," or goal, the Bush administration has been working on furiously since the US invaded Iraq is privatization of Iraq's oil. Now they have Congress blackmailing the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people: no privatization of Iraqi oil, no reconstruction funds.

This threat could not be clearer. If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold US reconstruction funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed there. The privatization law, written by American oil company consultants hired by the Bush administration, would leave control with the Iraq National Oil Company for only 17 of the 80 known oil fields. The remainder (two-thirds) of known oil fields, and all yet undiscovered ones, would be up for grabs by the private oil companies of the world (but guess how many would go to United States firms - given to them by the compliant Iraqi government.)

No other nation in the Middle East has privatized its oil. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iran give only limited usage contracts to international oil companies for one or two years. The $12 billion dollar "Support the Troops" legislation passed by Congress requires Iraq, in order to get reconstruction funds from the United States, to privatize its oil resources and put them up for long term (20- to 30-year) contracts.

What does this "Support the Troops" legislation mean for the United States military? Supporting our troops has nothing to do with this bill, other than keeping them there for another 30 years to protect US oil interests. It means that every military service member will need Arabic language training. It means that every soldier and Marine would spend most of his or her career in Iraq. It means that the fourteen permanent bases will get new Taco Bells and Burger Kings! Why? Because the US military will be protecting the US corporate oilfields leased to US companies by the compliant Iraqi government. Our troops will be the guardians of US corporate interests in Iraq for the life of the contracts - for the next thirty years.

With the Bush administration's "Support the Troops" bill and its benchmarks, primarily Benchmark No. 1, we finally have the reason for the US invasion of Iraq: to get easily accessible, cheap, high-grade Iraq oil for US corporations.

Now the choice is for US military personnel and their families to decide whether they want their loved ones to be physically and emotionally injured to protect not our national security, but the financial security of the biggest corporate barons left in our country - the oil companies.

It's a choice for only our military families, because most non-military Americans do not really care whether our volunteer military spends its time protecting corporate oil to fuel our one-person cars. Of course, when a tornado, hurricane, flood or other natural disaster hits in our hometown, we want our National Guard unit back. But on a normal day, who remembers the 180,000 US military or the 150,000 US private contractors in Iraq?

Since the "Surge" began in January, over 500 Americans and 15,000 Iraqis have been killed. By the time September 2007 rolls around for the administration's review of the "surge" plan, another 400 Americans will be dead, as well as another 12,000 Iraqis.

How much more can our military and their families take?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army and US Army Reserves and retired as a colonel. She served 16 years in the US diplomatic corps in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Micronesia and Mongolia. She resigned from the US Department of State in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq.
-------




How much longer will we allow the "Third Party (so called Centrists)";
"The Money Party (Corporatocrat Party)"............
The RepubliCratic "DC/K Street Elitist Party" to dictate U.S policy?

:confused:

ref: #11

http://progressivesonline.com/showthread.php?t=1201

[MAGI]

What? or :eek:
http://www.consumersforpeace.org/archive_special_prosecutor_plame_connection.html

[MAGI]

Here's more about Haliburton and "conservative" action, using our tax bucks for wasted projects........

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/5/02232/02654

It's all about "WHAT you do with WHAT you got"

[JamesP]

We just can't afford programs and services to enhance the lives of Americans here at home..... there's just not enough money ... who's going to pay? .....

but there's no limit to the money we can spend to destroy lives overseas... always enough to line the pockets of the military-industrial complex .... while cutting taxes on the richest Americans .... and soaring the national debt ......


Report: Wars Costing $12 Billion a Month

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070907R.shtml

The Associated Press's Andrew Taylor writes, "The boost in troop levels in Iraq has increased the cost of war there and in Afghanistan to $12 billion a month, and the total for Iraq alone is nearing a half-trillion dollars, Congressional analysts say."

[MAGI]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_kathlyn__070716_basra_oil_workers_pr.htm

July 16, 2007 at 16:59:54

Iraqis Protest Oil Law Today

by Kathlyn Stone Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

www.handsoffiraqioil.org

The draft hydrocarbon law being pushed by the Bush Administration is uniting citizens and disparate groups within Iraq against the U.S. government. Protests within Iraq are escalating as the Iraqi Parliament is pressured to pass the law which would turn over 70-80% of oil revenues to foreign companies. The Parliament is also wrangling over whether the oil law will be implemented under regional or national management. The Iraq Freedom Congress and the Anti-Oil Law Frontier staged a mass demonstration in Baghdad on July 7. Subhi Al-Badri, head of the Frontier, predicted an intensifying revolt against the law as pressure mounts for its passage. He said the majority of Iraqis "reject the oil law and it is in fact the law of slavery and servitude."


This report from today's protests in three cities is from US Labor Against the War and Oil Change International:

Basra, Iraq -- Today hundreds of Iraqis, led by the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU), took to the streets of Basra to demand that the Iraqi Parliament reject the proposed Oil Law.[1] Simultaneous demonstrations took place in Amara and Nassiryya. Local governate officials made statements in support of the demonstration and, along with the governor of Basra, have committed to sending letters to the Minister of Oil supporting the Union's demands.

Hassan Juma'a Awad al Assadi, President of the IFOU, charges that the proposed Oil Law surrenders Iraq's economic sovereignty to multinational oil companies: "'We will lose control over Iraqi oil. Therefore, the social progress in Iraq will be curtailed substantially, because the oil companies want huge profits; they are not concerned about the environment, wages, or living conditions...." The IFOU calls for immediate and complete withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq. The union represents 26,000 members in 10 state oil and gas companies across four governorates in the south of Iraq.

The Union was moved to public protest after initiating a strike on June 4, 2007, over a range of workplace issues and in opposition to the proposed Oil Law. IFOU leaders have said their members are prepared to strike again in defense of their nationalized oil industry. Iraq's oil has been in the public sector since the 1970s.

The call to demonstrate was also sparked by increased pressure by the Bush administration on the Iraqi Parliament to pass the Oil Law, which would open two thirds of Iraq's oil to foreign control through contracts that could last as long as 30 years. Adoption of the law is one of the benchmarks imposed on Iraq by the U.S. as a condition of continued reconstruction aid and support for the Maliki government.

Unions, other organizations and individuals around the world are calling on their elected representatives to demand that the U.S. government stop pressuring the Iraqis to pass the Oil Law. In the U.S., the labor and antiwar movements are calling on members of Congress who say they're against the war to drop the Oil Law benchmark and cease all U.S. pressure on the Iraqis to transform their oil industry for the benefit of multinational oil corporations. The activists will also focus on the International Oil Companies who have helped draft that Oil Law, have applied their own pressure on the Iraqis to pass the law, and seek to now profit from the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Video of the demonstration

For further information, go to: www.priceofoil.org or www.uslaboragainstwar.org.

[1] Demands from the Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions to Parliament include to: (1) reject the proposed oil law; (2) expel the current Oil Minister; (3) abolish the recently announced hike in oil and gas prices in Iraq; and (4) pass a law to establish labor rights and legalize trade unions.

Contact: For information on the Iraq Oil Law: Antonia Juhasz, Oil Change International (415) 846-5447. For information on the Oil Workers Union and Protest in Basra: Denice Lombard, U.S. Labor Against the War (202) 320-5588.




www.kathystone.squarespace.com

Kathlyn Stone is a Twin Cities, Minnesota-based writer covering science, health policy, the economy and international relations.

[MAGI]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_professo_070716_truth_or_consequence.htm

July 16, 2007 at 13:47:48

Truth Or Consequences? "Iraq Can Manage Without USA 'Any Time They Want'"

As the pressure on Bush increases, he is exerting exponential pressure and placing blame on the elected Iraqi government, which are lashing back at him and the new American commander. Little clues seeping out giving rise to suspicion that the Iraqi's, who are refusing and stalling to sign the Oil Bill which gives Brits and American Oil Contractors 99% of the profit, suspect what many here do, that the insurgency and the terrorism is either provoked by or created by sinister, covert, forces controlled by the oil industry or Iran Contra Type renegade political forces masterminded in the US.

Who are The Real "Insurgents and Terrorist" in Iraq?
The Prime Minister Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki said, according to several reports, (reports that would be difficult to find in detail on MSM were not it for online news media like OPEDNEWS.com), that the Iraqi police and military were perfectly capable of maintaining security there "any time they want," as soon as American troops leave. However, he also said they need a bit more weapons and security training. What he did not say, whether fearful to or otherwise, is that exiting of Iraq by the military should follow the exiting of "Contractors" who some believe are exacerbating the problem. Some believe that American and Brit underground covert operators are behind assassinations of those opposed to Occupation, murdering the innocent: women, children the elderly, unarmed citizens, and there have been reports of Americans and Brits posing as Arabs who were, at least, twice caught trying to set off bombs in residential districts and who were rescued by military forces, once by staging a prison break. If these stories and suspicions are true, were those efforts all aimed at making it seem as though our presence is needed to "stabilize" Iraq, when they real motive is to steal the oil and sell it to the world at inflated prices?

(see) http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_professo_070626_prophetic_exclusive_3a.htm



As you know, it is far cheaper to force American taxpayers to pay for the war and the oil, than for the oil companies to actually do any work finding and producing oil, or to invest in seeking and drilling, it is easier to let the taxpayers foot the bill for a trumped up war which only occurred because because congress did NO Due-Diligence or research on the meager evidence presented which we all saw on TV. When I saw the aerial photos I saw nothing that gave me concern of massive WMD evidence or build-ups. I tried to contact congressmen to ask for more research and was ignored.

There will be little research and drilling in the Western Hemisphere when there are the largest caches of Sweet oil on the planet in Iraq, Iran and Syria. It would cost billions for the oil companies to find and extract the oil here in our own hemisphere and they do not get the hoggish profit they desire in that way. Stealing Iraqi oil is costless because you, I, and the rest of America, are paying for it in trillions in expenditures for a phony "War" and the Iraqi people are paying for it with unholy suffering, disease, and death, but the oil companies are paying nothing for it, except what is of minimal value to them, the lives of a few employees. To characters like The Bushites, demoniacs bereft of Conscience and soul, 1,100,000 casualties, or 2,200,200, or 3,300,000 are nothing. Oil and profits are everything-well almost everything. The rest is frosting on the cake. What 'the rest'? Sadism is for some few sick dogs the only way to get it on. Hey, sadism works for them, regardless of cost.

For more on the above:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_professo_070421_the_wall_2c_which_may_.htm

skip



Moore..............
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_professo_070716_truth_or_consequence.htm

YES, Indeed "It's the OIL, STUPID!"

[MAGI]

Page 2.

McQuaig provides lots of relevant context for a full understanding of why oil centrally dominates geopolitics today:

-- wars and the reason America fights so many of them - for the essential resources, mainly oil, to keep the heart of capitalism beating, without which it can't;

-- the dominant media's vital hyperventilating lead cheerleader role selling them;

-- the power of the oil cartel and how it developed and grew after Edwin Drake drilled the first commercially successful well in Titusville, PA in 1859.

-- how John D. Rockefeller ruthlessly built a powerful Oil Trust he controlled; how it was nominally dismembered by Theodore Roosevelt's trust-busting efforts early in the last century; yet how it endured through joint ventures, interlocking directorates, mergers and "working (partial ownership) control" of its separate pieces, the largest of which was Rockefeller's Standard Oil of New Jersey, now called ExxonMobil. The old Oil Trust would fit in its back pocket.
the role of the US auto industry and its addiction to gas-guzzling, hugely greenhouse gas emitting, high-profit SUVs accounting for one-fourth of all US auto sales;

--
-- the rise, fall and reemergence of OPEC;

-- the historical roles of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela as dominant oil producing nations and the central role Iraq plays today as the grandest of grand oil prizes;
.................................................. .................................................. .......................

Whoa.......! Of course it's necessary to go out of the country for news such as this in the Main Stream Media..................

There's 8 more pages of the book REVIEW................


:thumbup: :thumbup:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_stephen__070801_reviewing_linda_mcqu.htm

It's a tri-national agreement hatched below the radar, controlled by Washington, and advocates greater economic, political, social, and security integration between the US (as boss), Canada and Mexico. In fact, it's an ugly corporate-led plot against the sovereignty of three nations for greater profits, enforced by a common hard line security strategy already in play in each country. It's goal is a borderless North America under US control without barriers to trade and capital flows for corporate giants, mainly US ones.

It's also to insure America gets free and unlimited access to Canadian and Mexican resources, mainly oil, but Canadian water, too. That will assure US energy security while denying Canada and Mexico preferential access to their own resources henceforth earmarked for US markets. The scheme amounts to NAFTA on steroids combined with Pox Americana homeland security enforcement partnered with Canadian and Mexican contingents. It adds up to the worst of all possible worlds headed for an unmasked "deeply integrated" police state. Canada is also currently hamstrung by a provision it agreed to in ratifying NAFTA in 1993. It gave up the right to reduce its US energy exports (should it need more of them) unless it cuts its own consumption by a comparable amount. Oil-rich Mexico, in contrast, agreed to no such provision and got an exemption Canada lacks. Canada has a loophole, though, SPP provisions will close if enacted. NAFTA can't prevent the country's use of its newly developed tar sands oil or the right to export them to other nations, as of now. With that in mind, Canada is building a 720 mile oil pipeline from northern (oil-rich) Alberta to British Columbia in the far west. When completed, it will enable resources to be exported to China or any other oil-consuming nation Canada chooses to trade with.

Meanwhile, back in the US, the Iraq war was launched in March, 2003. Dominant media fear mongering helped sell it, giddy cheerleadering accompanied its start, the reasons for going were reinvented when ones first given were exposed as lies, excuse-making now explains why things haven't gone as planned, and all the while we're told it had nothing to do with oil. And fish don't swim, and birds don't fly. Instead, as McQuaig explained "....the Iraq saga (was to disarm) a dangerous dictator (morphed into) a battle to bring democracy to the Middle East (with) oil remain(ing) strangely offstage, hidden in plain sight."[/B]

[MAGI]

My time ran out on page 2. of this article after entering a bit from the 2nd page..............
If you find this VERY INTERESTING as I do, hit the url for the full 9 page book review..........

Page 1.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_stephen__070801_reviewing_linda_mcqu.htm

August 1, 2007 at 05:46:39

Reviewing Linda McQuaig's "It's the Crude, Dude"

by Stephen Lendman Page 1 of 9 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com





Reviewing Linda McQuaig's "It's the Crude, Dude" - by Stephen Lendman

Linda McQuaig is a prominent, admired, and award-winning Canadian journalist writing about vital issues of concern to everyone. She was a national reporter for the Toronto Globe and Mail before joining the Toronto Star where she now covers Canadian politics with her trademark combination of solid research, keen analysis, irreverence, passion and wit. She's easy to read, never boring, and fearless. The National Post called her "Canada's Michael Moore."



McQuaig is also a prolific author with a well-deserved reputation for taking on the establishment. In her previous seven books, she challenged Canada's deficit reduction scheme to gut essential social services. She explained how the rich used the country's tax system to get richer the way it's worked in the US since Ronald Reagan and then exploded under George Bush. She exposed the fraud of "free trade" (never called fair because it isn't) empowering giant corporations over sovereign states while exploiting working people everywhere.

She also showed how successive Canadian governments waged war on equality since the 1980s, and in her latest book, ]"Holding the Bully's Coat - Canada and the US Empire," she takes aim at the conservative Stephen Harper administration's allying with George Bush's belligerent lawlessness and phony "war on terrorism". Canada chose not to be part of Washington's concocted "coalition of the willing" in Iraq but partnered in its war of aggression and illegal occupation of Afghanistan.

Her last book before her latest one is another important tour de force and subject of this review. It's titled "It's the Crude, Dude: war, big oil, and the fight for the planet." It's no secret America's wars in the Middle East and Central Asia are to control what a Franklin Roosevelt State Department spokesman in 1945 called a "stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history" - the huge amount of Middle East oil with most of it believed to be in Saudi Arabia then. With it goes veto power over how it's distributed, to whom, at what price, for whose benefit and at whose expense. Today, one country above all others may be that "greatest material prize" making it target number one America intends to control for the strategic power and riches it represents.

The country is Iraq, and it's the reason US forces invaded and occupy it. McQuaig's book explained it stunningly, beginning on her opening page: The "oil motive" drives America's wars "given oil's obvious geopolitical significance, and the fact that Iraq is the last easily harvested oil bonanza left on earth." More on that below and also on the fact that with less than 5% of the world's population and 3% of its oil reserves, the US wastefully consumes one-fourth of all oil production with no plan to cut back. It means a reliable outside source is essential pointing directly at the Middle East where two-thirds of all proved reserves are located. They're not inexhaustible, however, as oil is a finite resource. It means a crunch ahead is inevitable.

McQuaig cited a US Department of Energy National Energy Laboratory report saying: "The world has never faced a problem like this....Previous transitions (like 'wood to coal and coal to oil') were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary," and may already have occurred. Further, with America waging two costly oil-related wars for much of what's left, gaining control has become violent with no letup in sight and more oil-rich nations in Washington's target queue. More on that below as well and the fact that oil consumption keeps increasing, two huge emerging nations (China and India) need growing amounts of it, just at a time production peaked and is declining. That's a combustible mixture now playing out in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia. It also affects Iran, Venezuela, Sudan (for its Darfur oil riches) and other strategically important oil-rich nations that dare defy America by wanting control of their own resources along with the major share of revenue from them.

McQuaig deals with this timely and important subject in the part of the world where it matters most - the Middle East and especially Iraq where America came to stay. Her book is divided into 10 tantalizingly titled chapters. It was written in 2004, updated in 2006, and is just as relevant now as when first published. Some of the story is known, but much information covered isn't common knowledge and key parts aren't discussed at all in the mainstream. They include the rise of Big Oil and OPEC, Iraq's strategic importance, its potentially immense and easily accessible untapped oil riches, and America's intention to turn the nation into a centrally located Middle East military base with plans to stay as long as there's enough oil in the country and region to make it worthwhile. Current talk of future force drawdowns and withdrawal is baloney. That will be discussed further below as well.

[Jane of Arc]

Here ya' go Magi.

There's a lot of good stuff on this thread mostly posted by YOU. :thumbup:


:sunny:

[Magi2]

:thumbup:

Thanks Jane of Arc


The history is indeed something to have!!!!!!!!


We'll carry on here

:thumbup:
http://progressivesonline.com/showthread.php?t=1410

Re: Is it the OIL ******?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecry..._oil_deal.html


Quote:
July 02, 2008
Categories: Diplomacy

Waxman: White House knew of Iraqi oil deal

In September 2007, the Kurdish Regional Government, which runs the semi-autonomous region of Northern Iraq, announced that it had entered into an oil contract with U.S.-based Hunt Oil. The deal complicated negotiations over a revenue-sharing agreement and the Bush administration declared itself shocked at the news. “I know nothing about the deal,” said President Bush.

Documents uncovered by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform indicate that the White House probably shouldn’t have been so surprised. Among the many pieces of evidence that the administration knew and approved of the deal:

— A Commerce Department official wished Hunt Oil officials “a fruitful visit to Kurdistan.”

— A Hunt Oil general manager said he met with nine State Department officials and none expressed opposition.

— Five days after the announcement of the deal, a State Department official told Hunt officials about another “good opportunity in Iraq.”



U.S. involvement in the oil contract is a prickly issue for a number of reasons. If the Kurdish region can gain control of and revenue from its oil resources, it could effectively split off from the rest of Iraq, which would anger Turkey and could inspire southern Shia to do the same.Meanwhile, the U.S. is at pains to show that the invasion had nothing to do with oil resources, an argument undercut if it’s seen assisting U.S. companies in the exploitation of Iraqi oil. Finally, deals cut without the involvement of the Iraqi central government can only further exacerbate tensions among the various sects.

Aware of the high stakes, President Bush issued a strong denial following the announcement of the deal. “I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously if it undermines it, I'm concerned,” he said.

The White House wasn't immediately available to comment.



By Ryan Grim 03:27 PM


What a surprize..........

:rolleyes:

[Magi2]

http://www.countercurrents.org/leopold030708.htm

skipped to:

Despite the Bush administration’s denials about oil as a motivation for war, the Bush administration’s focus on Iraqi oil was firmly set.

On April 5, 2003, Reuters reported that the State Department's “Future of Iraq” project headed by Thomas Warrick, special adviser to the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, held its fourth meeting of the oil and energy-working group.

Documents obtained by Reuters showed that “a clear consensus among expert opinion favoring production-sharing agreements to attract the major oil companies.”

“That is likely to thrill oil companies harboring hopes of lucrative contracts to develop Iraqi oil reserves,” the news agency reported. “Short-term rehabilitation of southern Iraqi oil fields already is under way, with oil well fires being extinguished by U.S. contractor Kellogg Brown and Root …

“Long-term contracts are expected to see U.S. companies ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips compete with Anglo-Dutch Shell, Britain's BP, TotalFinaElf of France, Russia's LUKOIL and Chinese state companies.”

After U.S. troops captured Baghdad in April 2003, they were ordered to protect the Oil Ministry even as looters ransacked priceless antiquities from Iraq’s national museums and stole explosives from unguarded military arsenals.

Now, the long-held dreams of U.S. dominance over the Iraqi oil spigot now seem close to fulfillment.



Mission accomplished?
:confused:

[Magi2]

"Time for Iraq War oil profit taxes"!

http://www.truthout.org/article/time-iraq-war-oil-profits-taxes-part-ii

Yes indeed!

[Magi2]

The big OIL thieves have record profits for this quarter again as the working man struggles to get by...............

Read how our oil is shipped out of OUR country and learn how we are taken by the unmerciful greedy Corporate OIL Thugs!
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkid=65411


skip

U.S. gasoline shipments in April averaged 202,000 barrels a day, the most for the month since 1945, when America was sending fuel overseas to ease supply shortages in other countries during World War II. Gasoline exports in April 2007 were almost half at 116,000 barrels per day.

Residual fuel exports in April were 377,000 barrels per day, the fourth highest level for any month, and up 10 percent from 344,000 barrels per day a year earlier.

John Felmy, the chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute, said a portion of the oil products exported, especially diesel, was fuel that did not meet U.S. clean air requirements and therefore could not be sold in America. “You may have some that you’re not able to use,” he said.

Also, while U.S. gasoline demand is down due to high prices and a weak American economy, there is “strong economic growth outside the United States” where fuel is often subsidized and demand is high, said John Cook, director of EIA’s Petroleum Division.

However, both the EIA and API admitted they did not know why daily U.S. gasoline exports to Canada skyrocketed to 41,000 barrels in January-April this year from 9,000 barrels in 2007.

The EIA said more U.S. diesel is going to Latin American to fuel power plants because of a shortage of natural gas in the region, and China has switched to diesel from coal to run some of its generating facilities in order to reduce smog ahead of the summer Olympics next month in Beijing. (Editing by Christian Wiessner)




and bush & McSame call for more off shore drilling and in the Artic Refuge when this is the truth,

A letter to me from my congressman:



Dear (Magi)

Thank you for contacting me regarding oil prices. I appreciate your comments and having the benefit of your views.


I share your deep concerns about the economic hardship facing individuals, families, school districts and businesses as the price of oil, gasoline, diesel and heating oil escalate. As the rippling effects of these high prices are felt throughout our economy, examination of current energy markets and potential alternative energy sources and technologies has become of paramount importance.

I understand that we are an economy that currently runs on oil but we must takes steps to reduce our dependence on oil, foreign and domestic. While I support domestic production continuing in areas that are leased for exploration, I cannot support drilling for oil and natural gas in our most treasured natural resources, including the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and the Arctic Refuge.

Congress and the President have imposed a drilling moratorium on much of the OCS for more than 25 years, under Republican and Democratic leadership because of environmental and economic concerns. However, despite the moratorium, nearly 80 percent of federal oil and natural gas is located in areas that are currently open for leasing. Unfortunately, on July 14, 2008, the President lifted the executive order banning OCS drilling. But it will take Congressional action lifting a ban for any leasing or drilling to begin.

As for domestic oil production on shore, you may be interested to learn that over the past four years, the Bureau of Land Management issued nearly 29,000 permits to drill on public land. Unfortunately, about 19,000 leases were actually used to drill and thus, 10,000 permits are not being used to increase domestic production. Further, of the 47.5 million acres of onshore federal land already leased, only 13 million acres are in production. If millions of leased land remain idle and companies are unwilling to use the permits that have already been issued to them, I cannot support opening up additional lands and water to drilling.

Toward that end, on July 17, 2008, I was pleased to support the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands (DRILL) Act (H.R. 6515) which was introduced by Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV). H.R. 6515 would promote responsible domestic oil and gas production, especially in the 20 million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) which is estimated to have 10.6 billion barrels of oil. The NPR-A has more oil than the Arctic Refuge and is already partially leased and eligible for more leasing now which means the oil would come on the market much sooner. Existing pipelines reach within five miles of the NPR-A and H.R. 6515 would facilitate the infrastructure needed to connect the pipelines.

You may also be interested to learn that on May 22, 2008, the Energy Department released a report, requested in December 2007 by Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), which stated that oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge "is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices."

It is imperative that Congress set policy that will allow innovation to curb our dependence on fossil fuels. I have supported several short and long-term initiatives to invest in renewable energy sources, technology, efficiency and conservation.




Sincerely,

JOSEPH COURTNEY
Member of Congress

[JamesP]

A smart political move by Barack....

Strict opposition to new domestic production is a political loser (even though it makes little sense to place any emphasis in this area).

The Dems have to play to the "dumb America" that elected GWB twice.

Barack to Support Limited Offshore Drilling

Orlando, Florida - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday he would back limited offshore drilling as part of a broader energy package that attempted to bring down gas prices and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Obama dropped his blanket opposition to any expansion of offshore drilling and signaled support for a bipartisan compromise in Congress aimed at breaking a deadlock on energy that includes limited drilling.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post during a tour of Florida.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," Obama told the newspaper.

In a statement, Obama said he remained skeptical of the value of expanded offshore drilling in fighting rising gas prices. He has said he prefers oil companies to use the land already available.

[Magi2]

A smart political move by Barack....

Strict opposition to new domestic production is a political loser (even though it makes little sense to place any emphasis in this area).

The Dems have to play to the "dumb America" that elected GWB twice.

Exactly!

:toast:


Barack to Support Limited Offshore Drilling

Orlando, Florida - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday he would back limited offshore drilling as part of a broader energy package that attempted to bring down gas prices and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Obama dropped his blanket opposition to any expansion of offshore drilling and signaled support for a bipartisan compromise in Congress aimed at breaking a deadlock on energy that includes limited drilling.

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post during a tour of Florida.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage -- I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," Obama told the newspaper.

In a statement, Obama said he remained skeptical of the value of expanded offshore drilling in fighting rising gas prices. He has said he prefers oil companies to use the land already available.

and Obama's idea of a thousand dollar check taken from the hide of Big Oil profits would go a little way to pay our oil bill this winter.......
:thumbup: