Does the USA have a responsibility to help the Iraqis?

I went back to 2005 because that's when the deal was being discussed. I'm not sure how long the deal was signed for but the article says that deals like that are long-term, possibly 40 years. That would imply that the deal is still binding today. That being said, I don't know (and haven't researched) how many more oil fields are contracted today. But the deal in that link was for only 12 oil fields and alleges that Iraq stood to lose $74-$194 billion dollars just for those 12 fields. This link says contracts were signed in 2009 and 2010. http://www.kerkuk.net/eng/?p=5607 Without going back to check, it's possible that these deals were the initial deals being proposed in 2005. If not, then they are in addition to those prior deals. In any case, the idea for the deals was discussed well before our invasion and I don't think it's coincidental.

 

Actually, I already have.
I probably should have said: Oh, good grief, not again.

It's a popular argument amongst some people.

I don't really want to go through it all over again.

Maybe go through it with Balbus.

He likes ancient history.

So you have said about 3 times.

It's not really the point.

 

Good. Then you know that the petrodollar issue has much to do with the reason for the illegal invasion of Iraq.

However, your "ancient history" comment tells me that you don't understand that the petrodollar problem is as alive and well today as it was in 1971.

And maybe you're right. The murder of hundreds of thousands of people is not the point, especially since it is impossible to assign a degree of responsibility owed to those who live in a country whose infrastructure and people have been decimated as a result of an illegal invasion.

 

Wizardofodd

I don't think it means deals were signed.
It means that is the terms of deals moving forward.
Your later article says: 11 contracts with companies such as BP, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell.
That is three out of 11.
So who are the other 8 contracts with?
I have read it is with Chinese and Middle Eastern companies.
Some 'Western' companies being spooked off because of terms and conditions.
And the high costs when these oilfields were being auctioned off.

US oil companies lose out in Iraq auction

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/20016a3a-e81c-11de-8a02-00144feab49a.html#axzz34pRDTbPd

Iraq has auctioned off more proven oil reserves in the past six months than are collectively held by the United States, Mexico, and the United Kingdom.

But U.S. oil companies have signed surprisingly few development contracts – foreign rivals have swooped in to scoop up major deals.

Take last weekend, when Iraq wrapped up the biggest oil-field auction in history. Major new deals were announced by Europe's Royal Dutch Shell PLC (NYSE: RDS.A , RDS.B), OAO Gazprom (OTC ADR: OGZPY), Lukoil (OTC ADR: LUKOY), China's China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC), and Malaysia's Petroliam Nasional Berhad (Petronas).

The U.S. oil majors – ExxonMobil Corp. (NYSE: XOM), ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP) and Chevron Corp. (NYSE: CVX) – were nowhere to be seen.

http://moneymorning.com/2009/12/16/iraq-oil-companies/


Oil Contracts...

http://www.oil.gov.iq/PCLD-EN/PCLD/FIELD.html


http://www.moo-iraq.com/en/

 

storch

I'm not being dragged into the conversation...
Sorry.
Have it with somebody else who is actually interested.

 

ODON,

I don't mean to drag you into a conversation. If you don't wish to converse, then simply . . . don't. However, on a related matter, my point about the petrodollar issue still stands.

 

I saw some of those links as I was looking for the 2005 link. Regardless of who is getting what resources at the moment, I stand behind my initial point in post #68 and also the idea that the PSAs (oil deals) were one of the reasons for us going to Iraq as illustrated in the 2005 article.

 

Yep, it was all about oil and turning a blind eye to everything else then.....and it was a personal vendetta that Bush Jr. had against Sadam Husein for his father.....to kill him...nothing else....going a little off topic....

 

The agenda seems to have failed.

 

I know that opinion (amongst many) still stands.

 

So would it make up for those murders if we threw shrub and whoever gave the "false information" up to the iraqi people for trial? And honestly do you think that will happen? You seem to advocate another ocupation...would that be a consolation prize to the american war criminals not being charged?
I think of it this way. The biggest kid on the playground can push around the smaller kids...not saying thats right but who is gonna stop them?

 

*sigh*

 

Yeah, sigh...for sure....the world just gets worse and worse and no room left for us dreamers, it seems.....
nothing I can do....so I busy my mind about colors and other things...or else I would be too depressed to even get out of bed anymore.....

 

Not really why I am *sigh*ing

 

No, the petrodollar issue is not an opinion; it is a fact. The more you talk, the more you give the impression that you really haven't researched it at all.

 

lol...ok.

 

Indeed, who's going to stop them. And no, I am not advocating another occupation. Nothing can make up for murder; not on a micro level or on a macro level. I'm discussing the application of justice in equal measure regardless of who the killer is. But like you said--who's going to stop them.

 

Do you honestly think that your lol somehow makes the petrodollar issue a non-reality? Do you believe in magic or something similar, Odon? LOL! You really need to do some research before posting.

 

No, you sound like the Red Dwarf Talkie toaster and want the last word that you are right, even though I don't wish to engage.

 

The Iraqis didn't listen to their example to doing Duty to the common community. Thus they no longer have any responsibility to help those with cause for being recognizably responsible. Blood bath or no blood bath: the conscience cannot last as it is much longer. This conscience has no emotion.