Iraq Foreign Minister Zebari Blames United States For Present Day Iraq

[Bronco_Beerslug]

And to top it off Iraq Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has ordered the release of a senior figure in the organisation headed by radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr held by Americans.

--------------------------------------------------------
U.S. October death toll in Iraq hits 70
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Eleven more U.S. troops were slain in combat, the military said Wednesday, putting October on track to be the deadliest month for U.S. forces since the siege of Fallujah nearly two years ago.

The military says the sharp increase in U.S. casualties — 70 so far this month — is tied to Ramadan and a security crackdown that has left American forces more vulnerable to attack in Baghdad and its suburbs. Muslim tenets hold that fighting a foreign occupation force during Islam's holy month puts a believer especially close to God.

As the death toll climbed for both U.S. forces and Iraqi civilians, who are being killed at a rate of 43 a day, the country's Shiite-dominated government remained under intense U.S. pressure to shut down Shiite militias.

Some members of the armed groups have fractured into uncontrolled, roaming death squads out for revenge against Sunni Arabs, the Muslim minority in
Iraq who were politically and socially dominant until the fall of Saddam Hussein.

There have been growing signs in recent days of mounting strain between Washington and the wobbly government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who felt compelled during a conversation with President Bush this week to seek his assurances that the Americans were not going to dump him.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari on Wednesday blamed American officials who ran Iraq before its own government took nominal control for bringing the country to the present state of chaos.

"Had our friends listened to us, we would not be where we are today," Zebari said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Asked which friends he was referring to, Zebari said:

"The Americans, the Coalition (Provision Authority), the British. OK? Because they didn't listen to us. The did exactly what they wanted to do. ... Had they listened to us, we would have been someplace else (by now), really."

It was an unusually harsh statement from Zebari, a Kurd, whose ethnic group owes much to the U.S. intervention in Iraq and for its virtual autonomy in the north of the country.
CONT (http://tinyurl.com/y4q73n)

[baja]

...Only 43 a day damn those germans were so much more efficent.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If you think the Iraqis hate us now, then just wait until this news trickles down the information pyramid and into the populace:

Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil Locked Up

Even as Iraq verges on splintering into a sectarian civil war, four big oil companies are on the verge of locking up its massive, profitable reserves, known to everyone in the petroleum industry as "the prize."

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/

WMD my ass.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So they really did let this (terrorist ?) go.

------------------------------------------------------
Iraq Iraqi Leader Frees Sadr Aide Held by U.S. Troops

http://download.npr.org/anon.npr-www/chrome/icon_listen.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:getMedia%28%27ATC%27,%20%2718-Oct-2006%27,%20%2710%27,%20%27RM,WM%27%29;) by Anne Garrels (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=2100519)
<!-- start inset column --> <!-- end inset column / start center column --> All Things Considered (http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2), October 18, 2006 · Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki orders the release of a Shiite cleric who had been detained by U.S. forces on suspicion of running death squads, creating fresh tension between the U.S. military and the Iraqi government.
The Baghdad-area cleric is an aide to Muqtada al-Sadr, a key ally of Maliki. U.S. officials have long alleged that Sadr's militia, known as the Mahdi Army, is the biggest culprit in Iraq's burgeoning sectarian conflict.
<!-- end main center column / start bottom --> <!-- end story body/child story div -->
Related NPR Stories


Oct. 18, 2006
U.S. Casualties Rise in Iraq as Mission Grows Lethal (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6298628)
Oct. 17, 2006
Issues, Round 2: Key Phrases Shape Election (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6286979)
Oct. 17, 2006
Iraqi Town Has Seen 60 Die in the Past 4 Days (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6284917)
Oct. 17, 2006
A Question-and-Answer Session on the Iraq War (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6284145)
Oct. 17, 2006
Marine Appears in Court for Alleged Killing in Iraq (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6282141)

[The Lone Bolt]

If you think the Iraqis hate us now, then just wait until this news trickles down the information pyramid and into the populace:

Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil Locked Up

Even as Iraq verges on splintering into a sectarian civil war, four big oil companies are on the verge of locking up its massive, profitable reserves, known to everyone in the petroleum industry as "the prize."

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/

WMD my ass.

I dunno. I read this article and it says nothing about anybody having anything "locked up." It just goes on about how much oil Iraq has and then makes a bunch of innuendo about the "Future of Iraq Project Oil Energy Working Group" along with shoveling a lot of political spin on PSAs which may or may not happen.

I think you're overstaing your case.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I dunno. I read this article and it says nothing about anybody having anything "locked up." It just goes on about how much oil Iraq has and then makes a bunch of innuendo about the "Future of Iraq Project Oil Energy Working Group" along with shoveling a lot of political spin on PSAs which may or may not happen.

I think you're overstaing your case.
It says a lot about the corporate barons of the world being on the verge of "locking up" Iraq's oil.

The Iraqi government faces a December deadline, imposed by the world's wealthiest countries, to complete its final oil law. Industry analysts expect that the result will be a radical departure from the laws governing the country's oil-rich neighbors, giving foreign multinationals a much higher rate of return than with other major oil producers and locking in their control over what George Bush called Iraq's "patrimony" for decades, regardless of what kind of policies future elected governments might want to pursue.

Among the provisions in the Constitution, unlike those of most oil producers, is a requirement that the government "develop oil and gas wealth … relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment." The provision mandates that foreign companies would receive a major stake in Iraq's oil for the first time in the 30 years since the sector was nationalized in 1975.

Herbert Docena, a researcher with the NGO Focus on the Global South, wrote that an early draft of the constitution negotiated by Iraqis envisioned a "Scandinavian-style welfare system in the Arabian desert, with Iraq's vast oil wealth to be spent upholding every Iraqi's right to education, health care, housing, and other social services." "Social justice," the draft declared, "is the basis of building society."

What happened between that earlier draft and the constitution that Iraqis would eventually ratify? According to Docena:

While [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay] Khalilzad and his team of U.S. and British diplomats were all over the scene, some members of Iraq's constitutional committee were reduced to bystanders. One Shiite member grumbled, "We haven't played much of a role in drafting the constitution. We feel that we have been neglected." A Sunni negotiator concluded: "This constitution was cooked up in an American kitchen not an Iraqi one."

[Rohirrim]

If Iraq descends into civil war, isn't all of this moot?

[The Lone Bolt]

Among the provisions in the Constitution, unlike those of most oil producers, is a requirement that the government "develop oil and gas wealth … relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment." The provision mandates that foreign companies would receive a major stake in Iraq's oil for the first time in the 30 years since the sector was nationalized in 1975.


Here's the section of the Iraqi constitution that they are referring to:

First: The federal government with the producing governorates and regional governments shall undertake the management of oil and gas extracted from current fields provided that it distributes oil and gas revenues in a fair manner in proportion to the population distribution in all parts of the country with a set allotment for a set time for the damaged regions that were unjustly deprived by the former regime and the regions that were damaged later on, and in a way that assures balanced development in different areas of the country, and this will be regulated by law.

Second: The federal government with the producing regional and governorate governments shall together formulate the necessary strategic policies to develop the oil and gas wealth in a way that achieves the highest benefit to the Iraqi people using the most advanced techniques of the market principles and encourages investment.

And I looked through the Iraqi constitution and could find nothing that "mandates that foreign companies would receive a major stake in Iraq's oil." Here's the entire text of the Iraqi constitution:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9719734/page/3/)

Can you find that explicit requirement?:kiddingme

[bendog]

If Iraq descends into civil war, isn't all of this moot?

Not necessarily. One theory of "redeployment" is that the US forces hole up in forts to prevent the syrians or iranians from territorial gains (not to mention keep the turks out of lesserKurdistan) and just the wogs fight it out. Assuming al-aMucky's govt signs off with exxon mobile, we'd have not only a contract but also a couple of divisions sitting on the oil.

[freak6]

How about we pull out, and spend all that money on finding an alternative fuel source!!!

I can see how the Iraqis are so pissed at us.

[bendog]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mark_Kimmitt

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20061019/cm_usatoday/ourstrategyisnotstatic;_ylt=Aqz4s5P67PC4LrF8EDBU23 rMWM0F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YWFzYnA2BHNlYwM3NDI-

this guy's poster child for incompetence. I still can't believe bushii let all-mucky let the death squad guy walk. He was in charge of falluja when it went from peaceful to a bombed out city.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Here's the section of the Iraqi constitution that they are referring to:

And I looked through the Iraqi constitution and could find nothing that "mandates that foreign companies would receive a major stake in Iraq's oil." Here's the entire text of the Iraqi constitution:

Can you find that explicit requirement?:kiddingme
using the most advanced techniques of the market principles and encourages investment.

That would be us.

But in two months we'll see what actually happens.

[freak6]

Digging into the details of the Iraq casualty reports reveals that the numbers are actually worse than they first appear. The two deadliest months of the war for U.S. forces were April 2004 (with 135 deaths) and November 2004 (with 137 deaths). Significantly, those months were marked by full-scale offensives in Falluja and Najaf. This month, the NYT notes, the "military has not conducted any major operations," and yet at the current rate, around 120 Americans will have died by November 1.

<b> In other words, day-to-day operations in Iraq are now nearly as deadly as open warfare was two years ago—and perhaps for those on the ground, there is little distinction.

[bendog]

Digging into the details of the Iraq casualty reports reveals that the numbers are actually worse than they first appear. The two deadliest months of the war for U.S. forces were April 2004 (with 135 deaths) and November 2004 (with 137 deaths). Significantly, those months were marked by full-scale offensives in Falluja and Najaf. This month, the NYT notes, the "military has not conducted any major operations," and yet at the current rate, around 120 Americans will have died by November 1.

<b> In other words, day-to-day operations in Iraq are now nearly as deadly as open warfare was two years ago—and perhaps for those on the ground, there is little distinction.

I'd be wondering if in the congressional districts where the gop candiates are tied to bushii's strategy, the dems bring up that it's more than ironic for Americans to die and leave widows(ers) and children, for a govt that turns a death squad executive free to keep the civil war simmering. I wasn't for a unilateral invasion, but I wasn't for just pulling out, and leaving it all to Sadr and Iran .... but if bushii is so incompetent he can't even force them to ex-nay the death squads ... it's futile.

[The Lone Bolt]

That would be us.


Uuuhh . . . how do you figure? Your article says that the Iraqi Constitution "mandates that foreign companies would receive a major stake in Iraq's oil." I don't see how that line that you cite "mandates" anything.???

Can you show me where in the Iraqi Consitution "a major stake in Iraq's oil" is "mandated" to be handed over to "foreign companies?" Can you find any such paragraph? If that line you cite is the so-called "mandate" then you are really using your imagination. :pigsfly:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Uuuhh . . . how do you figure? Your article says that the Iraqi Constitution "mandates that foreign companies would receive a major stake in Iraq's oil." I don't see how that line that you cite "mandates" anything.???

Can you show me where in the Iraqi Consitution "a major stake in Iraq's oil" is "mandated" to be handed over to "foreign companies?" Can you find any such paragraph? If that line you cite is the so-called "mandate" then you are really using your imagination. :pigsfly:
It's not my article but we should know how the "goods" are divided up by Dec. 12th.

The constitution paves the way for the eventual acquisition of Iraqi assets by foreigners or multinational corporations. While the June draft stated that ‘Iraqis have the complete and unconditional right of ownership in all areas without limitation’, the final draft drops the words ‘unconditional’ and ‘without limitation’ and adds instead the qualification ‘except what is exempted by law’. Given that Bremer’s Order 39 already allows foreign ownership of Iraqi assets and that this order will be perpetuated as a law, the constitution in effect removes the restriction giving Iraqis exclusive ownership over assets in Iraq.
http://tinyurl.com/y6uy3n

[The Lone Bolt]

It's not my article but we should know how the "goods" are divided up by Dec. 12th.

Ok so the writer of this article:

A) Intentionally presented a quote out of context to create a false impression (i.e. ""develop oil and gas wealth … relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment" while deleting all that inconvenient stuff about Iraqi gov't control or "highest benefit to the Iraqi people"), and

B) Flat LIED about some imaginary "mandate" in the Iraqi Consitution to hand over "a major stake in Iraq's oil" to "foreign companies" (the Iraqi Constitution says no such thing).

So considering that the author, Joshua Holland, is now a proven liar and manipulator, what are the chances that anything in this article is even remotely close to being true?

And this is the sort of BS you base your political views on?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ok so the writer of this article:

A) Intentionally presented a quote out of context to create a false impression (i.e. ""develop oil and gas wealth … relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment" while deleting all that inconvenient stuff about Iraqi gov't control or "highest benefit to the Iraqi people"), and

B) Flat LIED about some imaginary "mandate" in the Iraqi Consitution to hand over "a major stake in Iraq's oil" to "foreign companies" (the Iraqi Constitution says no such thing).

So considering that the author, Joshua Holland, is now a proven liar and manipulator, what are the chances that anything in this article is even remotely close to being true?

And this is the sort of BS you base your political views on?

Got reading comprehension?

The Iraqi government faces a December deadline, imposed by the world's wealthiest countries, to complete its final oil law. Industry analysts expect that the result will be a radical departure from the laws governing the country's oil-rich neighbors, giving foreign multinationals a much higher rate of return than with other major oil producers and locking in their control over what George Bush called Iraq's "patrimony" for decades, regardless of what kind of policies future elected governments might want to pursue.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Both independent analysts and officials within Iraq's Oil Ministry anticipate that when all is said and done, the big winners in Iraq will be the Big Four -- the American firms Exxon-Mobile and Chevron, the British BP-Amoco and Royal Dutch-Shell -- that dominate the world oil market. Ibrahim Mohammed, an industry consultant with close contacts in the Iraqi Oil Ministry, told the Associated Press that there's a universal belief among ministry staff that the major U.S. companies will win the lion's share of contracts. "The feeling is that the new government is going to be influenced by the United States," he said.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/

http://washingtontimes.com/business/20050315-120755-8864r.htm


.

[The Lone Bolt]

Got reading comprehension?

No I don't. Do YOU?

Among the provisions in the Constitution, unlike those of most oil producers, is a requirement that the government "develop oil and gas wealth … relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment." The provision mandates that foreign companies would receive a major stake in Iraq's oil for the first time in the 30 years since the sector was nationalized in 1975.

Once again, WHERE IS THIS "PROVISION" IN THE IRAQI CONSITUTION? Can you show me where the Iraqi Consitution EXPLICITLY MANDATES a "major stake" in Iraqi Oil for "foreign companies?

WELL CAN YOU?


HOW IS THIS NOT A LIE? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?hmmm...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Ok so the writer of this article:

A) Intentionally presented a quote out of context to create a false impression (i.e. ""develop oil and gas wealth … relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment" while deleting all that inconvenient stuff about Iraqi gov't control or "highest benefit to the Iraqi people"), and

B) Flat LIED about some imaginary "mandate" in the Iraqi Consitution to hand over "a major stake in Iraq's oil" to "foreign companies" (the Iraqi Constitution says no such thing).

So considering that the author, Joshua Holland, is now a proven liar and manipulator, what are the chances that anything in this article is even remotely close to being true?

And this is the sort of BS you base your political views on?
LOL
Your selective reading skills are pretty sharp!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LOL
Your selective reading skills are pretty sharp!

:laugh:

I was thinking the exact same thing.

He's doing quite the cherry-picking job.

[The Lone Bolt]

LOL
Your selective reading skills are pretty sharp!

Once again

SHOW ME THE "MANDATE" IN THE IRAQI CONSTITUTION!!

Seems like your reading skills could use some work.

[The Lone Bolt]

:laugh:

I was thinking the exact same thing.

He's doing quite the cherry-picking job.

Cherry picking my ass!! WHERE IS THE IMAGINARY CONSITUTIONAL "MANDATE"?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Cherry picking my ass!! WHERE IS THE IMAGINARY CONSITUTIONAL "MANDATE"?
I'm pretty sure "mandate" is your word not mine.

And what in the world would lead you to believe that the Iraqi Constitution is the rule of law in Iraq? It's not like we're dealing with a Democracy there.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Cherry picking my ass!! WHERE IS THE IMAGINARY CONSITUTIONAL "MANDATE"?

Are you really this logically challenged?

The mandate in this instance is the requirement that the government "develop oil and gas wealth … relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment."

It follows that "foreign companies would receive a major stake in Iraq's oil for the first time in the 30 years since the sector was nationalized in 1975" because said companies are the only entities who can fulfill these requirements.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Cherry picking my ass!! WHERE IS THE IMAGINARY CONSITUTIONAL "MANDATE"?

ROFL!

So you're arguing that there is an Iraqi oil company that can satisfy the constitutional requirement that the Iraqi government "develop oil and gas wealth … relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment?"

Please identify that company (links appreciated.)

[The Lone Bolt]

ROFL!

So you're arguing that there is an Iraqi oil company that can satisfy the constitutional requirement that the Iraqi government "develop oil and gas wealth … relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment?"

Please identify that company (links appreciated.)


Jeez you guys are in some amazing state of denial here. The author explicitly states that the Iraqi Consitution R E Q U I R E S a "major stake in Iraq's oil" to be given over to "foreign companies" and then to back that up you come up with some weak-ass INTERPRETATION instead of pointing to an explicit mandate in the Iraqi Constitution! :saywhat:

You're joking, right? This clown didn't say that the Iraqi Consitution could be interpreted as mandating a major share of oil to foreign companies. The article states AS AN OBJECTIVE FACT that such a mandate is included in the Iraqi Consitution!

It amazes me that when you are flat lied to by someone who supports your own political beliefs you look the other way, but when dubya says something that was innacurate you call it a "lie" without question.

The author of that article LIED and there is absolutely NO DOUBT ABOUT IT!! Your endless capacity for delusion really astounds me!

[The Lone Bolt]

Are you really this logically challenged?

The mandate in this instance is the requirement that the government "develop oil and gas wealth … relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment."

It follows that "foreign companies would receive a major stake in Iraq's oil for the first time in the 30 years since the sector was nationalized in 1975" because said companies are the only entities who can fulfill these requirements.


Are you really this delusional? You can't recognize a clear lie when you see one?

Oh, I guess it's only a lie if dubya says it right?

Your rationalizations do nothing to explain away this author's lie. At the very least he is distorting the facts to fit his own political views (same difference).

[The Lone Bolt]

OK let's look at the actual paragraph from the Iraqi Constitution again:

First: The federal government with the producing governorates and regional governments shall undertake the management of oil and gas extracted from current fields provided that it distributes oil and gas revenues in a fair manner in proportion to the population distribution in all parts of the country with a set allotment for a set time for the damaged regions that were unjustly deprived by the former regime and the regions that were damaged later on, and in a way that assures balanced development in different areas of the country, and this will be regulated by law.

Second: The federal government with the producing regional and governorate governments shall together formulate the necessary strategic policies to develop the oil and gas wealth in a way that achieves the highest benefit to the Iraqi people using the most advanced techniques of the market principles and encourages investment.

Does it say anywhere that this must be done IMMEDIATELY and by FOREIGN COMPANIES? Isn't it possible that they could fulfill this requirement by waiting until Iraqi companies could handle it?

And how is it that the author of your article selectively focuses on "develop oil and gas wealth … relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment" and claims that this must be followed by the Iraqi government because it's constitutionally mandated. . .


BUT


. . . selectively dismisses OTHER CONSITUTIONAL MANDATES IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH SUCH AS "The federal government with the producing regional and governorate governments shall together formulate the necessary strategic policies to develop the oil and gas wealth in a way that achieves the highest benefit to the Iraqi people"?

Jeez you really take the twisted delusional cake!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Jeez you guys are in some amazing state of denial here. The author explicitly states that the Iraqi Consitution R E Q U I R E S a "major stake in Iraq's oil" to be given over to "foreign companies" and then to back that up you come up with some weak-ass INTERPRETATION instead of pointing to an explicit mandate in the Iraqi Constitution!

The author is right!

Who else, besides foreign companies, can fulfil the requirements given by the constitution?

Please name the Iraqi oil company.

The article states AS AN OBJECTIVE FACT that such a mandate is included in the Iraqi Consitution!

That's a lie.

The author did not state that this mandate was "included" in the constitution.

He merely states the obvious, i.e., that the requirements given by the constitution are tantamount to such a mandate. Please enlighten us as to how this isn't so.

It amazes me that when you are flat lied to by someone who supports your own political beliefs you look the other way, but when dubya says something that was innacurate you call it a "lie" without question.

You are the liar here.

Your strawman argument is "nowhere does the reference to 'mandates' appear in the constitution," when, in fact the author never stated that it did.

Your endless capacity for delusion really astounds me!

ROFL!

Oh, the irony!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Does it say anywhere that this must be done IMMEDIATELY and by FOREIGN COMPANIES? Isn't it possible that they could fulfill this requirement by waiting until Iraqi companies could handle it?

What Iraqi companies are you talking about?

Please identify them.

You are living in a fantasy world.

And how is it that the author of your article selectively focuses on "develop oil and gas wealth … relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment" and claims that this must be followed by the Iraqi government because it's constitutionally mandated. . .


BUT


. . . selectively dismisses OTHER CONSITUTIONAL MANDATES IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH SUCH AS "The federal government with the producing regional and governorate governments shall together formulate the necessary strategic policies to develop the oil and gas wealth in a way that achieves the highest benefit to the Iraqi people"?

How would the inclusion of this additional passage invalidate the author's conclusions?

Answer: It wouldn't.

Jeez you really take the twisted delusional cake!

ROFL! ROFL!

Says the spin monkey who can only point to imaginary, hypothetical Iraqi oil companies to support his argument.

[The Lone Bolt]

The author is right!

Who else, besides foreign companies, can fulfil the requirements given by the constitution?

Please name the Iraqi oil company.



That's a lie.

The author did not state that this mandate was "included" in the constitution.

He merely states the obvious, i.e., that the requirements given by the constitution are tantamount to such a mandate. Please enlighten us as to how this isn't so.



You are the liar here.

Your strawman argument is "nowhere does the reference to 'mandates' appear in the constitution," when, in fact the author never stated that it did.



OMG WHAT A LOAD OF BS!!!:rofl: :rofl:

Here once again is his quote:

Among the provisions in the Constitution, unlike those of most oil producers, is a requirement that the government "develop oil and gas wealth … relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment." The provision mandates that foreign companies would receive a major stake in Iraq's oil for the first time in the 30 years since the sector was nationalized in 1975

That is a flat statement of FACT not an interpretation. You are SO FULL OF IT!! The Iraqi Constitution says nothing about "foreign companies" or "major shares".

DAMN DUDE YOU SURE CAN SHOVEL THE CRAPPOLA!!:giggle:

He merely states the obvious, i.e., that the requirements given by the constitution are tantamount to such a mandate. Please enlighten us as to how this isn't so.

See above. The author's interpretation is just spin. There is no requirement that oil production has to be IMMEDIATELY developed or that it has to be developed by foreign companies.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I wonder why Bush declared a National emergency to implement Executive Order 13303 which grants all American oil and gas companies total and absolute legal protection in Iraq?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your rationalizations do nothing to explain away this author's lie. At the very least he is distorting the facts to fit his own political views (same difference).

There was no "lie."

There was only you being totally disingenuous when you misrepresented the author's claim as a direct reference to some passage or other that "included" the word "mandates."

And it isn't a "rationalization" to say that foreign oil companies are the only companies that can fulfil the requirements given by the constitution for the foreseeable future - it's simply a statement of fact.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

OMG WHAT A LOAD OF BS!!!:rofl: :rofl:

Here once again is his quote:



That is a flat statement of FACT not an interpretation. You are SO FULL OF IT!! The Iraqi Constitution says nothing about "foreign companies" or "major shares".

DAMN DUDE YOU SURE CAN SHOVEL THE CRAPPOLA!!:giggle:



See above. The author's interpretation is just spin. There is no requirement that oil production has to be IMMEDIATELY developed or that it has to be developed by foreign companies.

:oyvey:

You are logically challenged beyond belief.

You continue to dodge my request that you identify the Iraqi oil company that can fulfil the requirements set forth in the constitution.

If no such Iraqi company exists, then it follows that the requirements set forth in the constitution are a mandate for foreign companies to do the work.

Only a complete simpleton could fail to follow the logic.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Another fact for Lone Bolt to ponder:

Since day one, Iraqis have been almost completely excluded from participating in the development and reconstruction of their own country and its resources as this work has been gift wrapped and presented to Bush/Cheney crony companies and contractors.

In view of this, what good reason could you possibly cite to suggest that this pattern is going to change in the future?

[bendog]

Bolt does ignore facts, but then to believe there were womd, look what bushii did, LOL

Seriously though, there's been subletting on the contracts, but the Iraqis are no better at building stuff than the american war profiteers.

[The Lone Bolt]

What Iraqi companies are you talking about?

Please identify them.

You are living in a fantasy world.

Iraq:
State companies:
The Oil Ministry oversees the nationalized oil industry through the Iraq National Oil Company (INOC). Autonomous companies under INOC include: State Company for Oil Projects (SCOP) - design and engineering of upstream and downstream projects; Oil Exploration Company (OEC) - exploration; Northern Oil Company (NOC) and Southern Oil Company (SOC) - upstream activities in northern/central and southern Iraq, respectively; State Organization for Oil Marketing (SOMO) - crude oil sales and OPEC relations; Iraqi Oil Tankers Company (IOTC)

http://www.virginia.edu/igpr/APAG/apagoilcompany.html

There is absolutely no reason that these enterprises cannot be privatized in the future. The passage in the Iraqi Constitution that you parade as "proof" that foreign oil companies have a mandate to take over Iraqi oil is BS. That passage can also be interpreted as a LONG TERM GOAL, to be pursued after privatization of national oil companies.

So to say that the Iraqi Consitution "mandates" a takeover by foreign oil companies is BS and assumes that a) Iraqi national oil cannnot be privatized into the hands of Iraqi investors, and b) that the "development of oil and gas wealth … relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment" must occur immediately. Once again the passage could be interpreted as a long-term goal. That is the flaw in your logic.



How would the inclusion of this additional passage invalidate the author's conclusions?

Answer: It wouldn't.

Yes it would. The author of the article claims that PSA's would act against the interests of the Iraqi people:

PSAs often have long terms -- up to 40 years -- and contain "stabilization clauses" that protect them from future legislative changes. As Muttit points out, future governments "could be constrained in their ability to pass new laws or policies." That means, for example, that if a future elected Iraqi government "wanted to pass a human rights law, or wanted to introduce a minimum wage [and it] affected the company's profits, either the law would not apply to the company's operations or the government would have to compensate the company for any reduction in profits." It's Sovereignty Lite.


This is clearly prohibited by the Iraqi constitution, whith states that:

The federal government with the producing governorates and regional governments shall undertake the management of oil and gas extracted from current fields provided that it distributes oil and gas revenues in a fair manner in proportion to the population distribution in all parts of the country with a set allotment for a set time for the damaged regions that were unjustly deprived by the former regime and the regions that were damaged later on, and in a way that assures balanced development in different areas of the country, and this will be regulated by law.


The federal government with the producing regional and governorate governments shall together formulate the necessary strategic policies to develop the oil and gas wealth in a way that achieves the highest benefit to the Iraqi people using the most advanced techniques of the market principles and encourages investment.


The author of your article clearly is suggesting that the oil and gas revenues will not be distributed among the Iraqi population as required by the constitution, and furthermore he clearly believes that the PSAs will not be in the best interests of the Iraqi people. As the constitution clearly states that oil policies MUST be formulated "in a way that achieves the highest benefit to the Iraqi people", these PSAs, if they really are as harmful as he claims, are also prohibited by the constitution.

But that's the problem with this author: he cherry-picks the clauses he likes and ignores the ones he doesn't. According to him the following passage:

develop oil and gas wealth … relying on the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment

is absolute and must be put into law (and apparently implimented immediately even though there is no such requirement). But the other clauses that rather inconveniently stipulate distribution of oil revenues to the Iraqi people and regulating the oil industry for the best possible benefit of the Iraqi people are somehow not as set in stone.??? In fact he appears to dismisss them completely and assumes that they will be ignored simply because they inconveniently conflict with his assertions that it's all a US oil grab.:saywhat:


This article is all spin and assumptions. And yes, his insistence that the Iraqi Constitution "madates" that foreign oil companies rush in and grab most of Iraq's oil is far from a "fact". It is an interpretation based on a selective reading of the Iraqi Constitution and a sh-tload of assumptions. At best it's misleading, at worst it's a flat lie. I vote the latter.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Re-posted for Lone Bolt's benefit...

Another fact for Lone Bolt to ponder:

Since day one, Iraqis have been almost completely excluded from participating in the development and reconstruction of their own country and its resources as this work has been gift wrapped and presented to Bush/Cheney crony companies and contractors.

In view of this, what good reason could you possibly cite to suggest that this pattern is going to change in the future?

Good job finding that info re: the Iraqi oil ministry, but your entire argument rests on the fallacy that what could be will be.