Progress seen in Iraq

Say pepik, who has the major contracts in building, rebuilding, and operating those oilfields in Iraq? Who is making money from this war?
(BTW, name calling just makes you look childish)

 

Halliburton signed some big contracts to repair oilfields but since Saddam didn't sabotage everything this time around it didn't turn to be such a big project.

The point is its a war for oil except we didn't get the oil. You don't want to change the slogan, so you just distort the meaning.

Please differentiate between a fiat currency and a fiat monetary system.

 

We will end up getting the oil through PSAs or this war won't be allowed to come to a close. That's the main reason for remaining there. The new government hasn't signed them, and we won't leave until they do.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

Think we are only interested in the stability of the area, whatever that might mean? Not so we aren't leaving without those contracts signed.

 

Its interesting you keep repeating that Gardener, since there is basically nothing to back it up. I guess its one of those things that becomes true if you just keep repeating it.

Governments are not "locked into terms that cannot be altered for decades", in fact they can tear up agreements whenever they feel like it. They have in Russia and Venezuela. That's the thing about being the government, you make the law, so when the law isn't working you change it.

And are American firms getting all the PSA's in Iraq? Ask Canadian oil firms, like Heritage and Addax, Turkish firms like Genel, French firms like Perenco. All signed deals in Kurdistan, the region which has the highest support for the US. So wait - three countries which opposed the invasion of Iraq are signing deals with America's closest friends in the country?

That's just too inconvenient. War for oil! Forget the facts, repeat the slogans! War for oil!

 

There have been executive orders made by Bush to enforce PSAs. The deals you mention when were they signed? The reason the US tried to rundown France, Germany and Russia before the war, was because of these PSAs. And one of the first things Bush did after occupation was ask for them to forgive debts owed by Iraq.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_332.shtml

Read the executive order:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030522-15.html

 

Check the date on this piece:

http://www.seen.org/pages/media/20030723_Oily_Immunity.shtml

​

​

Emphasis mine to get Pepik's attention.​

 

Inconveniently for you, after the war.

How strange then that they were able to go in and sign PSA deals with the Kurds after the war. Anyway, pretend you didn't hear that. War for oil!

What a terrible injustice it is that the Iraqi people are not being forced to pay off the debts for Saddam's arms purchases and palace building.

How interesting. A two year old fearmongering article full of nonsense and predictions which didn't come true. And this helps your argument how exactly?

OK, and it says nothing about protecting PSAs. I pointed this out last time you cut and pasted this link. It seems like you don't actually understand what it says, but you are convinced there is something nefarious about it, so you just keep showing it to me anyway.

 

I'd love to have a link to your source on this statement

So debts incurred by past governments should not be honored? I bet Bush and Company would love to embrace that.

It outlines protectionss for foreign/US conglomerates, you must be blind if you can understand them.

It was true then and it is the reason this government won't pull out until this newly elected democratic governemnt of Iraq sanctions them.

 

Kurdistan is that a nation? Or are you speaking of the area in Iraq? How legal are those agreements


http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_w40/idw2007.10.04.13.35.24.html#hdng0

The fact that a non nationalized area is signing agreements makes you pleased on behalf of the Iraqi people.

 

You'd love to, but not quite enough to spend 10 seconds googling it. So why should I bother? You have an interesting habit Gardener. When you say something, and I prove to you that the complete opposite is true, you don't shift your views an inch. Your views are not based on facts, they are based on what you assume to be true based on prejudices.

I mean for all the times you've demanded I back up what I say, how many times have I been wrong? Zero. Not once. You may disagree with my opinions, I welcome that, but not one single time have I ever been proven to be factually incorrect. In contrast, I catch you making things up all the time. Your completely backwards PSA theory, thoroughly contradicted by actual facts, is only the latest example.

So if you want to read about those oil deals, google the oil firm names and Kurdistan yourself. But why bother? Once you realise its true, you will insist that the fact that you were getting things completely wrong changes nothing, because the point is its a war for oil! War for oil!

Relevance?

Relevance? Are you just grasping for an argument on something, anything?

Not if the country is desperately poor and the money was stolen by a corrupt dictator or used to fund wars against its own citizens. I'm not sure what you disagree with here - other than your instinctive urge to disagree with everything I say - you are opposed to debt relief for desperately poor countries? Why is that?

The problem is that I do understand them. The Coalition Provisional Authority was a transitional entity - it no longer exists and the US has no authority to make laws in Iraq. All the hysteria about mass privatisation and so on completely failed to materialise. You are still, years later, in the grip of fearmongering about an entity that doesn't even exist any more.

 

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,2020560,00.html#article_continue
'There is this fine line, that the wording is seeking to draw, that allows companies to claim that the oil is still Iraqi oil, whereas the extraction rights belong to the oil companies,' says Kamil Mahdi, an Iraqi economist at Exeter University. He criticised the US and Britain, saying: 'The whole idea of the law is due to external pressure. The law is no protection against corruption, or against weakness of government. It's not a recipe for stability.'

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/
The Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR) unit of Halliburton (HAL: up $0.54 to $20.66, Research, Estimates), of which Cheney was CEO from 1995 to 2000, said late Monday that it was awarded a contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil fires and make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure.

President Bush Tuesday asked Congress for $489.3 million to cover the cost of repairing damage to Iraq's oil facilities, much or all of which could go to Halliburton or its subcontractors under the terms of its contract with the Army.


http://edition.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/05/07/sprj.nitop.haliburton/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Army Corps of Engineers says a contract awarded without competition to a subsidiary of Halliburton included not only putting out oil well fires in Iraq but also "operation of facilities and distribution of products."




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton
KBR has contracts in Iraq worth up to $18 billion, including a single no-bid contract known as "Restore Iraqi Oil" (RIO) which has an estimated worth of $7 billion.

You are right "we" as in we the people of the United States, did not get any oil. Gas pump prices will not go down. But US companies are sure making a lot of money in the Iraqi oil fields.
Did you really think "war for oil" meant oil for you and me?