Big Oil's 'secret' out of Iraq's closet
By Pepe Escobar
NEW YORK - It is not about the "war on terror". It is not about weapons of mass destruction. It is not about "freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people", or to the "Afghan people". It is not about "Islamofascism". It is not about a Pentagon-coined "arc of instability" from the Middle East to Central Asia. New evidence shows once again both George W Bush administration wars - in Afghanistan and Iraq - above all are about oil and gas.
"Oil can be produced in these fields for about one dollar a barrel, while its value on world markets is now around US$140"
-
Mission accomplised, huh?
Lucia, why do you want to deny Iraq's elected government oil revenue? Why are you so scared of what every government in the world regards as the sole legitimate government of Iraq? Don’t worry, the IA--loyal to the GoI--is smashing the anti Iraqi 6arab Jarab.
Tony can you please ban people who use the term jarab, would you allow people to use deragatory terms about "dirty Indians", "spics" , "niggers" , "chinks" I find it offensive to read comments by rats like Anand who use such terminology.
No don't ban him Tony, I would like to refer to Anand and shady Indians like him henceforth as "filthy Indians"
Great.
Filthy fucking Indians dont know the hell they are talking about.
Lucia, why do you want to deny Iraq's elected government oil revenue?
anand | 07.03.08 - 11:39 am
-
How can I explain it to you?
Did you know, by any chance, that the iraqi government managed the oil revenues PRIOR TO the invasion of the americans and brits?
How can I explain certain things to a person, like you, who is a staunch defender of globalization, what means in economical terms a regression to the early 19th century economic principles and the aplication of SOCIAL DUMPING?
There's nothing I can explain that can make you understand. You're not only uninformed; you're deluded and enjoying it.
But as things are today, given the deep crisis the capitalism is going through, maybe you'll learn it the hard way.
-
"Did you know, by any chance, that the iraqi government managed the oil revenues PRIOR TO the invasion of the americans and brits?"
The elected GoI manages its oil revenues "NOW." Since Saddam was not the legitimate leader of Iraq, the Iraqi government did not manage its oil revenues before 2003.
"But as things are today, given the deep crisis the capitalism is going through, maybe you'll learn it the hard way." We Americans are learing the errors of our socialist big government ways. I hope we learn our lesson just as you do. {We have a severe financial crisis at the moment.}
That you consider a government elected under occupation more legitimate than the government of Saddam speaks volumes. Regardless what I can think of Saddam, there's no doubt that a great deal of Iraqis supported him. And non-Iraqis, even.
Saddam had got the oil nationalised. That's one of the good things he did for Iraq, wether you like it or not. So iraqi oil revenues were for the Iraqis not for a handful of foreign multinational corporations.
We Americans are learing the errors of our socialist big government ways
Holy cow!
I wonder what is extreme right for you...
-
Lucia you are wasting your time, Anand falls for the propaganda hook line and sinker every time. this time Around the USA wanted everyone to think that Saddam is the most baddest and most evil so of course Anand has been on the blogs saying that Saddam was worse than Hitler!
"Regardless what I can think of Saddam, there's no doubt that a great deal of Iraqis supported him."
Why was Saddam a legitimate dictator of Iraq? What non Ba3thi Iraqis supported Saddam?
Lucia, I haven't observed you engage in sectarian smears or be disrespectful. So I am asking you respectfully.
BTW, much of the American "right" is not very free market or capitalist. In fact the far righ and the far left of America are both messed up. I am not part of the right.
The US government gave guarantees to financial institutions and instruments that it shouldn't have (without transparency and regulation.) That sounds big government crony capitalist socialism to me. Big government manipulated by the rich and powerful to benefit themselves at the expense of the masses.
What non Ba3thi Iraqis supported Saddam?
anand | 07.03.08 - 1:52 pm
Is it not most of the sunni a great deal of iraqis?
anand, there is not such a thing as capitalist socialism.
Lucia, I haven't observed you engage in sectarian smears or be disrespectful. So I am asking you respectfully.
Yet interestingly enough we have all heard you engage in sectarian smears and be disrespectful: SUNNI ARAB JARAB...
"Question 8 reveals that from today's perspective and all things considered, 87% of Kurds, 65% of Shia, and just 5% of Sunni Arabs (up from 4% in August) believe the invasion was right. Nobody likes to be invaded by a foreign country. Why do a majority of Kurds and Shia believe the invasion was right? Life must have been horrible for them before 2003, if they believe that a US-led invasion of their country was right."
http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/20...t-miss-
him.html
Some Iraqis loved Saddam: http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/
20...peating_20.html
"anand, there is not such a thing as capitalist socialism."
Interesting. Would the term facist big government be more apt? I am a free market capitalist.
"Is it not most of the sunni a great deal of iraqis?"
Most Sunni Arab Iraqis (about 18% of the population) hated Saddam viscerally. Including Zeyad, the ITM brothers, Abbas Hawazin, and almost all the Sunni arab bloggers (excluding the occasional Riverbend and Layla.) The idea that Sunni arabs backed Saddam was used by sectarians to pit Shia and Kurds against sunni arab.
How popular was Saddam among non-Ba3thi Sunni Arab Iraqis?
anand | 07.03.08 - 8:01 pm
-
Yes, I think big fascist govt is more apt. Oligarchy or plutocracy also fit. And, needless to say, fake democracy.
I had already noticed you defend globalization and free market reigning supreme. As I told you in an earlier post, this translates into social dumping and is a regression in economical terms to the early 19th century. And when a society goes back to past ideologic premises, all it can be expected is that the same results will be obtained. So, look back if you want to know what lays ahead.
As to the percentage you indicate of Sunni supporters of Saddam, that's not the idea I got after reading a lot of stuff. Layla is more of a worshipper than of a supporter, she adores him. Regarding Riverbend, I never saw her writing about him -if memory serves me- she rather focused on the occupation and all terrible problems the iraqis were enduring. But I don't recall her mentioning him in any of her writings.
Anyway, what is clear to the vast majority of iraqis, be them Shia or Sunni (perhaps the Turks are better off) is that one thousand Saddams are preferable to being invaded, destroyed and now ruled by the americans (please don't tell me the current iraqi government is legitimate. That's what the americans want you to believe, either in Iraq or in Afghanistan. They like to play the "good boys spreading democracy", mind you. American candor is lovely, but has this negative side)
-
Commenting by HaloScan
