Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 61 to 74 of 74
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    25,151
    Quote Originally Posted by flyerhawk View Post
    We cannot realistically change any of these countries. Only these countries can change themselves. Our interference only makes it harder.
    Ding, Ding Ding....
    Ignorance is those who disparage believers....12 They will come and shout for joy on the heights of Zion; they will rejoice in the bounty of the LORD—the grain, the new wine and the olive oil, the young of the flocks and herds. They will be like a well-watered garden, and they will sorrow no more.
    13 Then young women will dance and be glad, young men and old as well. I will turn their mourning into gladness; I will give them comfort and joy instead of sorrow.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Irvine CA
    Posts
    11,342
    Quote Originally Posted by ctc View Post
    You didn't assert it you've tried to minimize it. We didn't just join what was underway, we deeply influenced the outcome. Arguing that we influenced the situation in one country and not the other is inaccurate.We as much initiated Libya (thru NATO) as we did iraq (thru the UN).
    And i love the comment about the oil. Loonyland appears once again. So where did all that oil we were supposedly after end up. Not in American hands



    If you think we did all we could have done I'll simply refer you to Beinart's article on how obama lost Iraq.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...utopsy/373225/

    If that's too liberal a publication you can try the WP.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...9f1_story.html

    Replete with solutions.
    Absolutely in American hands. American/Western oil companies won massive contracts to build Iraqi oil infrastructure, and they still live there today pumping oil, making profit. That you think this wasn't the case shows your superficial understanding of the whole situation.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...134071641.html


    "Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, US and other western oil companies were all but completely shut out of Iraq's oil market," oil industry analyst Antonia Juhasz told Al Jazeera. "But thanks to the invasion and occupation, the companies are now back inside Iraq and producing oil there for the first time since being forced out of the country in 1973."

    Juhasz, author of the books The Tyranny of Oil and The Bush Agenda, said that while US and other western oil companies have not yet received all they had hoped the US-led invasion of Iraq would bring them, "They've certainly done quite well for themselves, landing production contracts for some of the world's largest remaining oil fields under some of the world's most lucrative terms."
    Last edited by KickSave; 07-18-2014 at 05:58 PM.
    "What's so funny about peace , love and understanding?" - Elvis Costello

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    11,088
    Quote Originally Posted by KickSave View Post
    Absolutely in American hands. American/Western oil companies won massive contracts to build Iraqi oil infrastructure, and they still live there today pumping oil, making profit. That you think this wasn't the case shows your superficial understanding of the whole situation.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...134071641.html

    Please, spare us.

    A list of the major oil fields in iraq and who owns what percentage of the field. I see one US company. Maybe the other US companies are disguised as foreigners.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Iraq

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Duchy of Grand Fenwick
    Posts
    34,080
    Quote Originally Posted by ctc View Post

    If that's too liberal a publication you can try the WP.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...9f1_story.html
    Your evident try for "liberal partisan" credentials for that article is below even your usual belly-of-a-snake levels of honesty. Right up top it says in the author bio

    From 2003 to 2009, he was the longest continuously serving American official in Iraq, acting as a special assistant to five U.S. ambassadors and as a senior adviser to three heads of U.S. Central Command. In 2011, as an executive with Exxon Mobil, he negotiated the company’s entry into the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.
    APF doesn't come in screaming at others about how stupid they are. APF doesn't spam NST with the same tired topic 30 times a month. APF doesn't link to some kook in his mom's basement telling you how to, "Be afraid. Be very afraid" of the world falling down around you. And, when APF is proven wrong, he acknowledges he made a mistake and moves on, rather than harping about "sheeple."

    -- Cory Bonini

    Welchie summarized

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Irvine CA
    Posts
    11,342
    Quote Originally Posted by ctc View Post
    Please, spare us.

    A list of the major oil fields in iraq and who owns what percentage of the field. I see one US company. Maybe the other US companies are disguised as foreigners.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry_in_Iraq
    For starters I said "US/Western" and many of those oil companies are either US or Western, including BP and Shell plus many other European groups. Second, there's two purely US companies on that list, not one. Third, yes, US investors own a large chunk of many of those, especially Shell. Forth, that list is just who owns the production as of now. It doesn't mention that massive US contracts for many aspects of the oil industry such as drilling. Wanna take one guess who lead the way in getting those drilling contracts? Here's one clue. Former Vice President Dick Cheney once served as their CEO.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/bu...anted=all&_r=0
    It was part of a trend: Five of the six major fields, together representing several million barrels per day of potential output, went to European, Russian and Asian oil companies. It looked as though not much was going to companies from the United States, the country that took the leading role in the war.

    But read the fine print of those contracts, and companies more familiar to Americans are now poised to benefit handsomely as the oil business picks up in Iraq.

    The oil services companies Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International and Schlumberger already won lucrative drilling subcontracts and are likely to bid on many more in one of the world’s richest markets for companies that drill oil wells. These days, that is not the oil majors.

    Halliburton and Baker Hughes are American, while Schlumberger is based in Paris though its drilling subdivision is headquartered in Houston. Weatherford, though founded in Texas, is now incorporated in Switzerland. “Iraq is a huge opportunity for contractors,” Alex Munton, a Middle East analyst for Wood Mackenzie, a research and consulting firm based in Edinburgh, said by telephone. “There will be an enormous scale of investment.” Mr. Munton estimated roughly half of the expected $150 billion the international majors will spend in capital outlays at Iraqi oil fields over the next decade will go to drilling subcontractors, most of them American.

    Halliburton has won drilling and well refurbishment contracts at three of the six major fields, Weatherford International, Schlumberger and Baker Hughes at two others.
    The awarding of this vast new oil frontier to mostly non-American oil majors deflected criticism that the United States had invaded Iraq for its oil. The one major U.S. contract went to ExxonMobil, for refurbishing the West Qurna 1 field.

    The Russian oil concession in Iraq shows how geopolitics shaped the awarding of the primary contracts but is not preventing U.S. oil services companies from winning business today, helping their profits and stock prices.

    ...

    “The strategic interest of the United States is in new oil supplies arriving on the world market, to lower prices,” Andrei Kuzyaev, the president of Lukoil Overseas, the foreign subsidiary of the Russian giant, said in an interview.“It is not important that we did not take part in the coalition. For America, the important thing is open access to reserves. And that is what is happening in Iraq.”

    ...

    U.S. oil-services companies are well positioned to win the work because they have been in Iraq for years on contract with the U.S. occupation authorities and military. Rather than scaling back as the U.S. military pulls out, Halliburton is planning to expand.

    The company has 600 employees in Iraq today and said in a statement it intends to hire “several hundred” more before the end of the year.

    “We continue to win significant contracts in Iraq, and are investing heavily in our infrastructure,” Halliburton said.
    That former VP who was also CEO of Haliburton? You know, the guy who LEAD THE CHARGE into Iraq?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton
    Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $36 million.[42] As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.[43] Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000 and has received stock options from Halliburton.[44]
    You need to get a clue dude.
    Last edited by KickSave; 07-20-2014 at 03:17 PM.
    "What's so funny about peace , love and understanding?" - Elvis Costello

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Richfield, MN
    Posts
    19,957
    Ah, Haliburton. Haven't heard that conspiracy in awhile, lol.
    If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city. --Aristotle
    If we did all the things we are capable of, we would literally astound ourselves. - Thomas Edison

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Promised Land
    Posts
    37,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Vin Lombardi View Post
    Ah, Haliburton. Haven't heard that conspiracy in awhile, lol.
    Are you saying they didn't hire him to influence government contracts in their favor?

    Serious question, Vin.
    I've got binders full of women
    and a one point plan.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Duchy of Grand Fenwick
    Posts
    34,080
    Kicksave,

    Be a little careful about the difference between bias and self-interest. That Cheney was biased in favor of the oil industry is beyond dispute. But that doesn't mean his actions in office were strongly motivated by personal financial benefits.

    What really rankles is how aggressive Cheney was about trying to bust Iran sanctions when he was Halliburton CEO, which definitely included trying to circumvent the law.

    Everybody,

    Please note that while they're closely related, oil production and oil field services are different businesses. Halliburton is in the latter. I believe that, in general, US share in the latter is greater than in the former, the French company Schlumberger notwithstanding.
    APF doesn't come in screaming at others about how stupid they are. APF doesn't spam NST with the same tired topic 30 times a month. APF doesn't link to some kook in his mom's basement telling you how to, "Be afraid. Be very afraid" of the world falling down around you. And, when APF is proven wrong, he acknowledges he made a mistake and moves on, rather than harping about "sheeple."

    -- Cory Bonini

    Welchie summarized

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Irvine CA
    Posts
    11,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Vin Lombardi View Post
    Ah, Haliburton. Haven't heard that conspiracy in awhile, lol.
    Its 11-14 years old. Kinda yesterdays news. I thought everyone actually knew and accepted this was how the Iraq war was devised, but apparently CTC (and maybe you?) seem to still think it was about WMD?

    That's the real LOL. WMD.
    "What's so funny about peace , love and understanding?" - Elvis Costello

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Irvine CA
    Posts
    11,342
    Quote Originally Posted by AndromedaPatFan View Post
    Kicksave,

    Be a little careful about the difference between bias and self-interest. That Cheney was biased in favor of the oil industry is beyond dispute. But that doesn't mean his actions in office were strongly motivated by personal financial benefits.

    What really rankles is how aggressive Cheney was about trying to bust Iran sanctions when he was Halliburton CEO, which definitely included trying to circumvent the law.

    Everybody,

    Please note that while they're closely related, oil production and oil field services are different businesses. Halliburton is in the latter. I believe that, in general, US share in the latter is greater than in the former, the French company Schlumberger notwithstanding.
    Have you seen the documentary "Why we went"? The documentation is readily out there under FOI which suggest in no unclear terms that the Iraq war was based on energy policy... they began hatching military plans for Iraq before 9/11 ever happened, and energy policy, specifically access to the massive untapped industry there, was the primary focus of the strategy. WMD simply became a convenient cover after 9/11 happened.
    "What's so funny about peace , love and understanding?" - Elvis Costello

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Promised Land
    Posts
    37,464
    Quote Originally Posted by AndromedaPatFan View Post
    Kicksave,

    Be a little careful about the difference between bias and self-interest. That Cheney was biased in favor of the oil industry is beyond dispute. But that doesn't mean his actions in office were strongly motivated by personal financial benefits.
    If you're looking for the quid pro quo, you need to go back to his term as Defense Secretary when he solicited a study about privatizing government and defense functions by KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Of course they said it was a great idea and further recommended that newly appropriated honeypot should go to them. A few years later, he gets his entry level CEO job for a total of 44 million.

    I don't believe corruption on such a scale as ever been attempted at that level.
    As Defense Secretary, Mr. Cheney commissioned a study for the U.S. Department of Defense by Brown and Root Services (now Kellogg, Brown and Root), a wholly owned subsidiary of Halliburton. The study recommended that private firms like Halliburton should take over logistical support programs for U.S. military operations around the world. Just two years after he was Secretary of Defense, Cheney stepped through the revolving door linking the Department of Defense with defense contractors and became CEO of Halliburton. Halliburton was the principal beneficiary of Cheney's privatization efforts for our military's logistical support and Cheney was paid $44 million for five year's work with them before he slipped back through the revolving door of war profiteering to become Vice-President of the United States. When asked about the money he received from Halliburton, Cheney said. "I tell you that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it."
    http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1117-22.htm
    I've got binders full of women
    and a one point plan.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Irvine CA
    Posts
    11,342
    Quote Originally Posted by RayClay View Post
    If you're looking for the quid pro quo, you need to go back to his term as Defense Secretary when he solicited a study about privatizing government and defense functions by KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton. Of course they said it was a great idea and further recommended that newly appropriated honeypot should go to them. A few years later, he gets his entry level CEO job for a total of 44 million.

    I don't believe corruption on such a scale as ever been attempted at that level.


    http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1117-22.htm
    Government had nothing to do with it.... riiiight, Dr Moriarty.
    "What's so funny about peace , love and understanding?" - Elvis Costello

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    11,088
    Quote Originally Posted by AndromedaPatFan View Post
    Your evident try for "liberal partisan" credentials for that article is below even your usual belly-of-a-snake levels of honesty. Right up top it says in the author bio
    This is a classic example of the value of reading comprehension.

    I didn't claim that the article was written by a liberal did I. I said it the WP was liberal. If you would like to argue that the WP doesn't have a liberal slant by all means have at it, humour is good for the soul and that argument would indeed create more than a few laughs.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    11,088
    Quote Originally Posted by KickSave View Post
    For starters I said "US/Western" and many of those oil companies are either US or Western, including BP and Shell plus many other European groups. Second, there's two purely US companies on that list, not one. Third, yes, US investors own a large chunk of many of those, especially Shell. Forth, that list is just who owns the production as of now. It doesn't mention that massive US contracts for many aspects of the oil industry such as drilling. Wanna take one guess who lead the way in getting those drilling contracts? Here's one clue. Former Vice President Dick Cheney once served as their CEO.
    You may have a burgeoning career in comedy.
    So the argument that Iraq was fought for oil (which has always meant US control of the oil) now means Western control of the oil. So lets look at that argument. Does the West control the oil? Quite clearly the answer is no. As you have noted all the companies have is a license to produce the oil, for which they receive a per barrel amount. iraq itself still controls the oil and can revoke the contracts at any time if the companies don't fulfill their obligations in the contract. So the notion that the West or Western interests have any control over iraqi oil is overblown rhetoric.
    As to two companies and not one well you've really demonstrated how ludicrous my argument was haven't you. US companies have something like less than 10% of total production from these fields.

    Shell is held primarily US investors? Yet they have only 2 of the 13 seats on the board. And these US investors are primarily mutual funds, index funds, pension funds. How do they manage to exert any form of control with such a minority of board positions? Amazing, utterly amazing.

    They don't own the production, the iraqi gov't does, the company merely earns a fee for each barrel it produces, hardly control.

    And now you want to argue that subcontractors represent control of oil supplies? People that make pressure valves, pipes, instrumentation, provide food and housing control the oil? Getting a clue would indeed be an appropriate admonition.

    Like I said you may a burgeoning career in comedy. Maybe you could open for Sagit.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.