Iraq's oil: The spoils of war

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

http://www.independent.co.uk/template/ver/gfx//new_indy_logo3.gif

Quote:

Iraq's oil: The spoils of war

By Philip Thornton, Economics Correspondent
Published: 22 November 2005

Iraqis face the dire prospect of losing up to $200bn (£116bn) of the wealth of their country if an American-inspired plan to hand over development of its oil reserves to US and British multinationals comes into force next year. A report produced by American and British pressure groups warns Iraq will be caught in an "old colonial trap" if it allows foreign companies to take a share of its vast energy reserves. The report is certain to reawaken fears that the real purpose of the 2003 war on Iraq was to ensure its oil came under Western control.

The Iraqi government has announced plans to seek foreign investment to exploit its oil reserves after the general election, which will be held next month. Iraq has 115 billion barrels of proved oil reserves, the third largest in the world.

Continued...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2003/03/18/wioil18big.jpeg

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 555 • Replies: 18

No top replies

I am still waiting on all those tankers full of sweet Iraqi Oil. Any idea when they will start heading America's way?

I'd like to see a timeline.

0 Replies

"The Iraqi government has announced plans to seek foreign investment to exploit its oil reserves after the general election, which will be held next month."

Gee, a soverign nation making decisions on behalf of their citizens.

So explain why you take issue with this?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Gee, a soverign nation making decisions on behalf of their citizens.

It's ironic that you use the word "sovereign" concerning the Iraqi government and the Iraqi constitution.

The coalition occupiers set up the government and drew up their constitution which explicitly allows foreign investment and did away with the one they had which was much more nationalistic, limiting investment to Iraqis and other Arabs.

The government was formed and the constitution was written first and foremost to benefit the occupiers, not necessarily the people of Iraq.

0 Replies

So you are telling us that the elections in Iraq were a fraud?

Amazing!

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I am still waiting on all those tankers full of sweet Iraqi Oil. Any idea when they will start heading America's way?

I'd like to see a timeline.

Do you still think oil had nothing to do with invading Iraq?

0 Replies

A Nation decides to go to war to protect their interests, such as the US in WW2.

A Nation may decide to help defend another Nation, not because they are allies, but because they share common interests, Such as US and England defending Kuwait.

The US and England and most of the West have interests in the Middle East...OIL!.

This is why you do not see the West going into Africa to stop those repressive regimes.The US and England and others in the West have no interests in Africa and Africa has not been able to prrovde any meaningful "reasons" to devlop hose "relationships".

0 Replies

BEWARE BUSH'S BOOMERANG

The Anti-War Movement's Work Has Just Begun--But it Needs Historical Context

by Bill Weinberg

"Beware of those who speak of the spiral of history," wrote Ralph Ellison in Invisible Man, "they are preparing a boomerang. Keep a steel helmet handy."

Actually, those who are preparing boomerangs don't usually tip their hands, however. While the US media portray an Iraq liberated from dictatorship, press commentators in the Arab world see a replay of the aftermath of World War I, when European powers divided the Middle East, granting themselves easy access to oil resources. In the official climate of self-congratulation, we urgently need to raise questions about how Saddam Hussein came to be in the first place.
http://ww3report.com/boomerang.html

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

A Nation decides to go to war to protect their interests, such as the US in WW2.

slightly off beam i know but what were those interest in your opinion woiyo?

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

woiyo wrote:
A Nation decides to go to war to protect their interests, such as the US in WW2.

slightly off beam i know but what were those interest in your opinion woiyo?

Our interests in the Hawaiian islands as well as free shipping lanes for trade to name only 2.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
woiyo wrote:
A Nation decides to go to war to protect their interests, such as the US in WW2.

slightly off beam i know but what were those interest in your opinion woiyo?

Our interests in the Hawaiian islands as well as free shipping lanes for trade to name only 2.

so no argument with Adolf Hitler then? [Excepting he declared war on US]

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
woiyo wrote:
A Nation decides to go to war to protect their interests, such as the US in WW2.

slightly off beam i know but what were those interest in your opinion woiyo?

Our interests in the Hawaiian islands as well as free shipping lanes for trade to name only 2.

so no argument with Adolf Hitler then? [Excepting he declared war on US]

Who was sinking US ships in the Atlantic? GERMANY!

Who ruled Germany at that time? HITLER!

None of this is relavent to the post.

Want to get back on track?

0 Replies

yeah delighted just interested in another view
i've heard so many Americans saying the US went to war to save Britain from Germany (twice) and Russia (once) and is now fighting Islam for us. Or words to that effect.

0 Replies

England, like the US, will only enter a war to protect it's interests. In regard to Iraq, if Iraq had no oil, would the US or England care what the ruler was doing to it's people? Probably not.

Should England or the US care?

0 Replies

Quote:

LONDON (Reuters) - World supermajors may rob Iraq of billions and grab control of its oilfields unless ordinary Iraqis can have a greater say in how their country's riches are tapped, U.S. and British campaigners said on Tuesday.

Big oil is being lured by the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA), promoted by Washington and London, which gives them huge returns on investment, but deprives Iraq of up to $194 billion (113 billion pounds), according to "Crude Designs: The rip-off of Iraq's oil wealth".

"Under the influence of the U.S. and UK, powerful politicians and technocrats in the Iraqi oil ministry are pushing to hand all Iraq's undeveloped fields to multinational oil companies, to be developed under production sharing agreements," said Greg Muttitt, the report's author....Reuters

"The rip-off of Iraq's oil wealth"....This kind of sums everything up.

0 Replies

Gad to hear a representative of the right saying it like it is. It's not and never has been about Iraq, Iraqis or the potential instability of Saddam. It's about "protecting one's interests" vis a vis oil and and other economic considerations.
Good analogy with regards to Africa. Who the **** wants to save people from an oppressive regime when there's no money to be made.
That's what's wrong with this war and that's what 's wrong with all those who support Bush's facade as Commander in Chief.
This is about money, oil and power.
"Saving" the Iraqis was ex post facto.

Although I don't agree with you, I really respect you for finally ponying up and admitting the reality of this bullshit war.

Iraq's oil: The spoils of war

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know