|
Real0ne -> RE: Finally...a decent economic solution for Iraq (4/7/2007 6:56:10 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Did anyone notice that the first oil contracts were awarded by the Iraqi government? Anyone notice who they went to? China and Vietnam are two, and a few others. None to the USA, no 'Halliburton' connection?
What happened to the "blood for oil" REAL reason the USA invaded?
Why? Pure capitalism at work. The Iraqi's traded with the same people they were trading with under Saddam. They have translated contracts ready for renewal. The people who actually do the work already know each other. Bank accounts already exist and are ready for funds.
Did someone say "REAL" reason?
New Oil Law Means Victory in Iraq for Bush
At any time within the next few days, the Iraqi Council of Ministers is expected to approve a new "hydrocarbon law" essentially drawn up by the Bush administration and its UK lackey, the Independent on Sunday reported. The new bill will "radically redraw the Iraqi oil industry and throw open the doors to the third-largest oil reserves in the world," says the paper, whose reporters have seen a draft of the new law. "It would allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil companies in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972." If the government's parliamentary majority prevails, the law should take effect in March.
As the paper notes, the law will give Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell and other carbon cronies of the White House unprecedented sweetheart deals, allowing them to pump gargantuan profits from Iraq's nominally state-owned oilfields for decades to come.
Chris Floyd, the correspondent for Truthout.org, writes the Bush's Victory claim in Iraq is achievable only in the sense of his thinking not yours. Your thinking of Victory is democracy in Iraq, and his thinking of Victory is a claim of the Oil Reserves in Iraq. He says, with the advent of this new Hydrocarbon Law in Iraq and with the announced increase in the US Armed forces will enable oil companies gain a strong foothold in the Iraq Oil Market (with significant oil profits share for them). Most of the forces will be used not to fight the insurgency rather than protect these oil barons. Iraqis will have only a minority in this industry if this law passes even though it owns the third largest oil reserves in the world. Read the related article also, Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil which chronicles the oil companies interest in Iraq and who is protecting them in Iraq none other than the US and British Armed forces.
While we still think the Democracy in Iraq is possible, we just have to keep dreaming because it is not going to happen. For proof you can check how many democratic countries are there in the Middle East for the last 100 Years. So if you ask Bush, did you win the victory in Iraq? he will say a big Yes.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/88023/New_Oil_Law_Means_Victory_in_Iraq_for_Bush
Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has 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.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045/
The law sets no minimum standard for the extent to which foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy, partner with Iraqi companies, hire Iraqi workers or share new technologies.
The international oil companies could also be offered some of the most corporate-friendly contracts in the world, including what are called production sharing agreements. These agreements are the oil industry’s preferred model, but are roundly rejected by all the top oil producing countries in the Middle East because they grant long-term contracts (20 to 30 years in the case of Iraq’s draft law) and greater control, ownership and profits to the companies than other models. In fact, they are used for only approximately 12 percent of the world’s oil.
http://priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/war-terror/iraqi-oil-law/
more
Halliburton is moving to UAE at a time when it is being investigated in the U.S. for bribery, bid rigging, defrauding the military and illegally profiting in Iran. It is currently in the process of divesting all of its ownership interest in the scandal-plagued KBR subsidiary, notorious for overcharging the military and serving contaminated food and water to the troops in Iraq.
Although Halliburton will still be incorporated inside the United States, moving its corporate headquarters to UAE will make it easier to avoid accountability from federal investigators. The company has proven adept at using offshore subsidiaries to circumvent restrictions on doing business in Iran and to elude responsibility for paying benefits to former employees.
Halliburton has also used its operational structure for contracts in Iraq and post-Katrina -- especially multiple layers of subcontractors -- to elude oversight and accountability to taxpayers.
Moving to UAE may also hinder ongoing government investigations into Halliburton's alleged
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/dubai.html
Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers
Sen. Dorgan speaks about KBR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gox6YB56cJ8&mode=related&search=
Halliburton's Hella Good Deal
Charlie Cray
July 21, 2006
Charlie Cray is the director of The Center for Corporate Policy in Washington, D.C., and co-author of The People's Business: Controlling Corporations and Restoring Democracy (Berrett-Koehler, 2004).
Last week, the Army announced with much fanfare that it was canceling the monopoly logistics contract that Halliburton/KBR has used to bilk U.S. taxpayers since the occupation of Iraq began. The contract will be broken up and divided among at least three different companies, but it’s not clear that this will make much difference to taxpayers, or even that Halliburton will stop making a killing.
The new policy is, in effect, tacit recognition of the epidemic of waste, fraud and poor contract oversight that have plagued the Iraq occupation from the start. It vindicates key congressional critics, such as Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., whose dogged persistence has exposed a cornucopia of corruption associated with contracts like Halliburton’s. Yet, if the history of the Iraq contracts so far is any indication, that’s about as much as can be read into the policy.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/21/halliburtons_hella_good_deal.php
anyway that is the real and what happened to halliburton\
|
|
|
|
