Iraq Before and After US Occupation

[Cookie Monster]

Oh, I'll agree with you on that. Allowing all the looting was disgraceful.

What do you mean allowing? The US was the looter.

 

[sazerac]

What do you mean allowing? The US was the looter.

Certainly not! That's ridiculous!

 

[Cookie Monster]

Invading a country then privatising its resources and distributing them amongst some corporations is an act of piracy.

Under the new law, the Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of only about 17 of Iraq's approximately 80 known oil fields.

Not only were negotiations behind closed doors, but the proposed law wasn't publicly available until recently, although the British and American governments, and many oil companies, were given early drafts ... 'Even Iraqi MPs are seeing the law for the first time now.'

Law.com - Oil Debate Fuels D.C. Lawyer's Role in Iraq

 

[sazerac]

Invading a country then privatising its resources and distributing them amongst some corporations is an act of piracy.

How long do you people think that big lie is going to be believed? It's been 5 years and you still have no proof that the US has profited from invading Iraq. Iraq is in charge of every barrel of oil in their country.

Law.com - Oil Debate Fuels D.C. Lawyer's Role in Iraq

I thought we were talking about the looting of Iraq's priceless artwork. Much of which has been returned.

And this article proves nothing about anything. Iraq owns its oil and the income has to be distributed. So what?

 

[Real Talk]

you still have no proof that the US has profited from invading Iraq.

The U.S is not a hollistic entity. It is a comunity. No one suggests that it was done to enrich the U.S. public. But it has certainly enriched some corporations. Many of whom were/are very close to parts of both the political and defence establishments. This is not even debateable.

 

[sazerac]

The U.S is not a hollistic entity. It is a comunity. No one suggests that it was done to enrich the U.S. public. But it has certainly enriched some corporations. Many of whom were/are very close to parts of both the political and defence establishments. This is not even debateable.

How do you conduct a war without offering private corporations a chance to make money? Our government is not capable of doing the stuff that these private companies do. There are no huge companies that do this stuff that don't have friends in the government.

You all have gotten way too much mileage out of all this finger pointing. The biggest lies since the war began are "no blood for oil!" and "Bush lied, people died!"

This was all unforgivable during a war.

 

[Real Talk]

Invading a country then privatising its resources and distributing them amongst some corporations is an act of piracy.





Law.com - Oil Debate Fuels D.C. Lawyer's Role in Iraq

I dont give a **** about halliburtons profit motive. Right now everyone else suffers, while they make a killing. They can lick my balls.

 

[Real Talk]

There are no huge companies that do this stuff that don't have friends in the government.

2 things.
The VP? Come on. Youve gotta be kidding me.
second thing, wonder why theyve all got mates in politics? Its cause theyre crooks bro. Crooks on the papaer trail.

 

[sazerac]

2 things.
The VP? Come on. Youve gotta be kidding me.
second thing, wonder why theyve all got mates in politics? Its cause theyre crooks bro. Crooks on the papaer trail.

Nobody else can come close to doing the stuff Halliburton does. They're the ones who put out all the Kuwait fires in record time.

There not a lot the pentagon can do if Cheney was the CEO. I'm sure they could care less, anyway.

You can't just call everybody a crook. Halliburton is under more scrutiny than any company on this planet. Didn't they sell of their Iraq operations because it was so unprofitable and a pain in the ass?

Congress has to appove all this, not Cheney.

 

[sazerac]

Damit! I edited and added that 2nd f in "off."

 

[Cookie Monster]

no proof that the US has profited from invading Iraq.

The US state does not profit per se, but many large oil companies do.

Iraq is in charge of every barrel of oil in their country.

You accepted earlier that the Iraqi government is a puppet government; therefore would it not be innaccurate to say that the Iraqi government is in control of the state and country?

I thought we were talking about the looting of Iraq's priceless artwork.

Maybe you were but I was not. I apologise for myself not being more detailed earlier which has confused you.

And this article proves nothing about anything.

It proves that after the US invasion most of Iraq's oil fields have been privatised; most of the fields and contracts for production have been sold to large oil companies based in the US, thus these companies are getting quite wealthy from this war. Before the invasion Iraq's oil fields had been nationalized in 1972[before Hussein] and currently they are now mostly owned by private companies. Oil is a very important commodity and the business can be quite profitable.

 

[jin1776]

It proves that after the US invasion most of Iraq's oil fields have been privatised; most of the fields and contracts for production have been sold to large oil companies based in the US, thus these companies are getting quite wealthy from this war. Before the invasion Iraq's oil fields had been nationalized in 1972[before Hussein] and currently they are now mostly owned by private companies. Oil is a very important commodity and the business can be quite profitable.

None of them are "owned" by anyone except for the Iraqi people as enshrined by their Constitution, however, Iraq has entered into PSA's but unlike the PSA's which Saddam had with the Soviets and the Chinese, the revenues will not be going to fill the coughers of a tyrant so that he can live in the lap of luxury while his people starved, all oil revenues are now to be distrubuted evenly amongst the Iraqi citizenry. This was not forced upon the Iraqi government, they passed legislation, they wanted this as it was the best way for them to get their oil infrastrure up and running again after more than a decade of decline under the U.N. oil embargo. Regardless I'm quite sure that the Iraqi's will renig on the PSA's after they get what they want out of the agreements just like Saudi Arabia did. And for the record investing billions of capital into Iraqi oil infrastructure is a pretty risky proposition right about now.

 

[jin1776]

Use your ****ing brain. You people llive in a fantasy land.
Considering american troops, ournalists and contractors cant travel safely in msot of the country, just how accurate do you expect a poll to be? No one leaves the green zone. And if they do, no one goes to large places. Places American missiles periodicaly blow the **** out of. And places intruders get kidnapped. These reports are a joke.

Ever hear of a ****ing telephone?

Now secondly, the iraqis u talk to here. Not representative. They LEFT Iraq. That to bigger bias in the sample to make it remotely valid.

U know how I know the Iraqis arent glad the Americans are there?
They dont snitch on insurgants. that to me implies that they want to see an end to the American occupation.

lol, um where the hell have you been for the last year? This might have been a valid argument back in '06, but now? Not so much.

 

[Cookie Monster]

None of them are "owned" by anyone except for the Iraqi people as enshrined by their Constitution

On paper only!

PSA

What does this abbreviation stand for? Profit-Sharing?

the revenues will not be going to fill the coughers of a tyrant so that he can live in the lap of luxury while his people starved

Though I have no praise of Hussein this statement is simply untrue or at the least blows things far out of proportion. Also, what is a "cougher" and a "lap of luxury?" I believe you meant "coffer" and "life of luxury."

all oil revenues are now to be distrubuted evenly amongst the Iraqi citizenry.

Please stop making me laugh. As if the Shells of the world distribute their profits "evenly amongst the citizenry."

This was not forced upon the Iraqi government

False. A government which hands its property over to private corporations from the country that invaded it, set up its government, and occupies the country does not do such actions out of the mere kindness of their hearts.

they passed legislation

Irrelevant. Every government passes legislation, so how does this show it was the "free will" of Iraq?

And for the record investing billions of capital into Iraqi oil infrastructure is a pretty risky proposition right about now.

And you should ask yourself just who profits the most from privatising oil? Or simply who gains the most from invading and privatising oil? It is not the majority of Iraqis. If the Iraqi government was really so eager to merely repair and update their oil infrastructure why not simply hire companies or do it themselves as Iraq is not dirt-poor and there are people knowledgable about such things instead of handing over almost all of their oil fields and production to large foreign corporations?

they wanted this as it was the best way for them to get their oil infrastrure up and running again after more than a decade of decline under the U.N. oil embargo

It would be the easiest, best, and "legal" way to add more property to the likes of Shell, Exxon Mobil, etc. and their shareholders.

Regardless I'm quite sure that the Iraqi's will renig on the PSA's after they get what they want out of the agreements just like Saudi Arabia did.

Irrelevant.

renig

What does this word mean?

 

[Real Talk]

Ever hear of a ****ing telephone?

Who u gona call?

 

[jin1776]

On paper only!

No in law and in fact

What does this abbreviation stand for? Profit-Sharing?

Production Sharing Agreement.

Though I have no praise of Hussein this statement is simply untrue or at the least blows things far out of proportion. Also, what is a "cougher" and a "lap of luxury?" I believe you meant "coffer" and "life of luxury."

I meant "coffer" but you've never heard of the expression "lap of luxury"? Anyways I'm not blowing anything out of proporition millions of people starved and died of preventable diseases between 1991 and 2003 all the while Saddam continued to build himself lavish palaces rather than feed his people.

Please stop making me laugh. As if the Shells of the world distribute their profits "evenly amongst the citizenry."

The dually elected government of Iraq does.

False. A government which hands its property over to private corporations from the country that invaded it, set up its government, and occupies the country does not do such actions out of the mere kindness of their hearts.

We didn't set up the Iraqi government the Iraqi people set up the Iraqi government by writing their own constitution and ratifying it in a nationwide referendum. Iraq has not "given" anything away they are entering into PSA's in order to utilize the benefits of a free market system.

Irrelevant. Every government passes legislation, so how does this show it was the "free will" of Iraq?

It was legislation passed by the dually elected Iraqi government who came to power through certified free and fair elections sport. And again Iraq needed these PSA's as they couldn't afford to fix their own oil infrastructure.

And you should ask yourself just who profits the most from privatising oil? Or simply who gains the most from invading and privatising oil? It is not the majority of Iraqis.

Actually it is because unlike under Saddam under these PSAs Iraqi oil revenues will be distributed equally to the entire population rather than horded by a brutl tyrant.

If the Iraqi government was really so eager to merely repair and update their oil infrastructure why not simply hire companies or do it themselves as Iraq is not dirt-poor and there are people knowledgable about such things instead of handing over almost all of their oil fields and production to large foreign corporations?

Iraq COULD NOT afford the needed infrastructure nor could it afford to do it themselves that is why they entered into the PSAs.

It would be the easiest, best, and "legal" way to add more property to the likes of Shell, Exxon Mobil, etc. and their shareholders.

It's the only way the Iraqis could repair their infrastructure.

What does this word mean?

To go back on a deal.

 

[jin1776]

Who u gona call?

Random population samples, the same as any telephone survey.

 

[Real Talk]

Random population samples, the same as any telephone survey.

lol.
How many Iraqis own operating land line telephones? Who is going to answer the phone, and be rpepared to answer your questions. How does this population differ in demographics to the broader population in question. How are these people opinions going to be altered by the context of questioning (a western journalist asking such questions effects the situation). I very much doubt that in a war zone like Iraq any such study would be remotely statistically valid. And find the idea u would blindly put it fowards as a source of data is laughable to me. Unless youve seen something I havnt (like solid demographic data on who owns telephones, and there survey response practices when questioned about the occupation vs more private opinion, which im sure is near impossible to get).

 

[jin1776]

lol.
How many Iraqis own operating land line telephones?

Probably the vast majority of them the same as anyother country on the planet.

Who is going to answer the phone, and be rpepared to answer your questions.

About the same amount of people that would conduct a non-telephone survey.

How does this population differ in demographics to the broader population in question. How are these people opinions going to be altered by the context of questioning (a western journalist asking such questions effects the situation). I very much doubt that in a war zone like Iraq any such study would be remotely statistically valid. And find the idea u would blindly put it fowards as a source of data is laughable to me. Unless youve seen something I havnt (like solid demographic data on who owns telephones, and there survey response practices when questioned about the occupation vs more private opinion, which im sure is near impossible to get).

What's laughable to me is your assertion that we should ignore the polling data because in your fantasy world not enough Iraqi's own phones or phone owners who would answer a survey are somehow not representative of the Iraqi populace because the own phones and would do a phone interview. :roll: I take it you don't believe any survey huh? Because most surveys today are done over the phone FYI.

 

[Real Talk]

Probably the vast majority of them the same as anyother country on the planet.

LOL.
just lol. **** people crack me up.

And I know that all phone polling is biased, and so do the people who do it.
Id suspect in the case of Iraqi, its highly biased to the point of completely writing off validity.

 

[jin1776]

LOL.
just lol. **** people crack me up.

What cracks me up is denying that there aren't enough phones in Iraq to obtain a large enough sample population.

And I know that all phone polling is biased, and so do the people who do it.
Id suspect in the case of Iraqi, its highly biased to the point of completely writing off validity.

How can the medium from which one obtains polling data determine its validity? What is it about owning a phone that makes a person unrepresentative of the target population?

 

[Real Talk]

What cracks me up is denying that there aren't enough phones in Iraq to obtain a large enough sample population.



How can the medium from which one obtains polling data determine its validity? What is it about owning a phone that makes a person unrepresentative of the target population?

Not large. REPRESENTATIVE.
And there are many things in iraq that would undermine such a studies validity. Primaraly, how well phone lines work in what areas, and what social groups are currently wealthy enough to own phones. Who is listed in phone books. I would also argue young poor men are less likely to answer and/or respond to said poll, and are probably more likely to be inclined to resist.

Think man. Its totaly wapred samples. Wealthy (enough to own a phone) people in areas where infrastructure operates well that are listed in the book of phone owners the surveyer can get. Thats the sample of a phone poll in Iraq.

My guess is, a hefty proportion of all operating phones in Iraq are in the green zone

 

[jin1776]

Not large. REPRESENTATIVE.

O.K. just what about owning a phone and being willing to do a survey makes them less representative than the population as a whole?

And there are many things in iraq that would undermine such a studies validity. Primaraly, how well phone lines work in what areas,

Care to provide any evidence that the population samples were not chosen evenly from around the country?

and what social groups are currently wealthy enough to own phones.

Oh please you don't have to be wealthy to own a phone. Can you provide any evidence that the majority of Iraqi's don't own phones?

Who is listed in phone books.

How does having a listed number make them less representative?

I would also argue young poor men are less likely to answer and/or respond to said poll, and are probably more likely to be inclined to resist.

You can argue that all you want but can you provide a single scrap of evidence that "young poor men are less likely to answer the phone or respond to said poll"?

Think man. Its totaly wa

pred samples. Wealthy (enough to own a phone) people in areas where infrastructure operates well that are listed in the book of phone owners the surveyer can get. Thats the sample of a phone poll in Iraq.

My guess is, a hefty proportion of all operating phones in Iraq are in the green zone

And my guess is that the vast majority of Iraqi's have telephones the same as just about every country on the planet. OK here's the figure the majority of Iraqi's own phones either land lines or cellular, and I really don't understand why most owning cell phones makes a difference.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html

 

[Real Talk]

And my guess is that the vast majority of Iraqi's have telephones the same as just about every country on the planet. OK here's the figure the majority of Iraqi's own phones either land lines or cellular, and I really don't understand why most owning cell phones makes a difference.

1) you are wrong on this premis. The majority of people in the world have in fact never made a phone call. And this a war zone where people are struggling for food etc. The idea that phone access is equitable in Iraq is likely false.

2) cellphones are not lsited like land lines. ANd things like electricity in Iraq have been extremely irregular. Something which oen can only presume to be the case with phones etc also.

 

[jin1776]

1) you are wrong on this premis. The majority of people in the world have in fact never made a phone call. And this a war zone where people are struggling for food etc. The idea that phone access is equitable in Iraq is likely false.

Can you name a country in which the majority of people do not own telephones?

2) cellphones are not lsited like land lines.

I didn't use a phone book when I used to do telephone surveys.

ANd things like electricity in Iraq have been extremely irregular. Something which oen can only presume to be the case with phones etc also.

Electric output and production are now above pre-war levels and output levels are distributed evenly throughout all of Iraq.