http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132569.ece

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Frances

The article gave itself away with the word "exploitation" in the first sentence.

 

The United States has better technology and extraction expertise than anyone in the world. Yes, even better than the Middle Easterners. Halliburton, in particular, has more cutting-edge expertise than any company in the world (suppressing hole fires, geotechnic extraction, et. al.). Iraq can't do it on their own. As was stated in some movie, we're not hosting an international kegger over there, and I expect to be fully paid for what we put in and make some hefty profits.

 

I see nothing unethical or overbearing in the contracts. I'm glad we got them rather than someone else. Sounds like we should invest in exploration companies now.

Follow the money if you want to know the true reason that we invaided Iraq.

75% of the profits? Then a 100% increase in industry standard profits?

No wonder Bush is so determined to increase troop levels by 30,000 troops. He is anticipating all XXXX breaking loose once the Iraqi's realize they have been sold out. This is the New American Frontier, except this time it is not the Indians standing in the way of corporate greed, it's the Iraqi's.

Follow the money if you want to know the true reason that we invaided Iraq.

75% of the profits? Then a 100% increase in industry standard profits?

No wonder Bush is so determined to increase troop levels by 30,000 troops. He is anticipating all XXXX breaking loose once the Iraqi's realize they have been sold out. This is the New American Frontier, except this time it is not the Indians standing in the way of corporate greed, it's the Iraqi's.

 

I missed the part where that went into Bush's pocket.

I missed the part where that went into Bush's pocket.

 

Just to be sure I'm clear on this - are you saying that you don't believe that Bush, his family, and his friends won't be participating in the profits the oil companies will reap, if this story comes to pass?

 

 

Frances

Just to be sure I'm clear on this - are you saying that you don't believe that Bush, his family, and his friends won't be participating in the profits the oil companies will reap, if this story comes to pass?

 

 

Frances

 

Would it be wrong if they did? Should the Bush family not be allowed to own oil stock like you or I can? Does anyone here really believe that we declared war and sent young people to die so we could get good returns on our oil stock? Or do you believe that it is was just one of many, many objectives?

Follow the money if you want to know the true reason that we invaided Iraq.

75% of the profits? Then a 100% increase in industry standard profits?

No wonder Bush is so determined to increase troop levels by 30,000 troops. He is anticipating all XXXX breaking loose once the Iraqi's realize they have been sold out. This is the New American Frontier, except this time it is not the Indians standing in the way of corporate greed, it's the Iraqi's.

 

 

I wouldn't say that it was "corporate greed" in the case of the American West. That is what I assume you mean by the frontier. As there were no corporations until close to the turn of the century I think you may want to use a different analogy. The "frontier" was not exploited by corporations, it was really exploited by the people.

 

More or less just trying to makes sure proper historical analogies are used. No agenda here either way. :thumb:

Just to be sure I'm clear on this - are you saying that you don't believe that Bush, his family, and his friends won't be participating in the profits the oil companies will reap, if this story comes to pass?

 

I don't know who his friends are, I can't imagine all of them being CEO's of oil companies, I don't know what companies his family owns stock in, and I know he doesn't own any stock oil companies. I also can't imagine someone as prideful as George W. Bush staking his legacy as President on a poorly executed war so that a couple of his "friends" can cash a bigger pay check. Unless you can show me definitive proof that someone is going to cut him a huge check as soon as he steps out of office, then I will continue to not believe he waged this war for his own personal gain.

Would it be wrong if they did? Should the Bush family not be allowed to own oil stock like you or I can? [/Quote] Absolutely nothing wrong with Bush, his family, or his friends owning stock in a publicly traded company. Did I say that there was anything wrong with it? I simply asked Habib if he was of the belief that Bush won't (directly, or indirectly) participate in windfall profits from the oil, should this scenario come to pass.

 

 

Does anyone here really believe that we declared war and sent young people to die so we could get good returns on our oil stock? Or do you believe that it is was just one of many, many objectives?

I must have missed it. I don't remember declaring war on Iraq. I realize that you are speaking in the collective, but let's not pretend that 100% of the American populace EVER supported this war - the real number wasn't even close to that figure.

 

As for the windfall profits that would be realized, will they go into the US treasury, or will they go directly to the oil companies? Did the taxpayers foot the bill for the war in Iraq or did the oil companies?

 

 

Frances

I don't know who his friends are, I can't imagine all of them being CEO's of oil companies, I don't know what companies his family owns stock in, and I know he doesn't own any stock oil companies. I also can't imagine someone as prideful as George W. Bush staking his legacy as President on a poorly executed war so that a couple of his "friends" can cash a bigger pay check. Unless you can show me definitive proof that someone is going to cut him a huge check as soon as he steps out of office, then I will continue to not believe he waged this war for his own personal gain.

 

Believe as you will.

 

Suffice it to say that you have FAR more faith in the inherent goodness of W than I do.

 

 

Frances

Absolutely nothing wrong with Bush, his family, or his friends owning stock in a publicly traded company. Did I say that there was anything wrong with it? I simply asked Habib if he was of the belief that Bush won't (directly, or indirectly) participate in windfall profits from the oil, should this scenario come to pass.

 

 

I must have missed it. I don't remember declaring war on Iraq. I realize that you are speaking in the collective, but let's not pretend that 100% of the American populace EVER supported this war - the real number wasn't even close to that figure.

 

As for the windfall profits that would be realized, will they go into the US treasury, or will they go directly to the oil companies? Did the taxpayers foot the bill for the war in Iraq or did the oil companies?

 

 

Frances

 

This country's elected representatives voted to attack Iraq. They have thrice voted to fund continued military operations in Iraq. 100% of the populace is not behind anything that is voted upon.

 

I do not know what "windfall" profits are. That has never been defined. Corporations gamble and take risks. Those risks are sometimes rewarded. We have had many threads discussing this subject.

 

The GOVERNMENT is not footing the bill for oil extraction or production. The corporations are, and they are doing it with their own people and using their own capital. The return should go to them, and the government, of course, will tax them on it.

Believe as you will.

 

Suffice it to say that you have FAR more faith in the inherent goodness of W than I do.

 

 

Frances

 

This doesn't have anything to do with my personal view of W. What your posing is not substantiated by any evidence that I have seen. There isn't a link between the oil corporations' profits and W's personal wealth.

This country's elected representatives voted to attack Iraq. They have thrice voted to fund continued military operations in Iraq. 100% of the populace is not behind anything that is voted upon.[/Quote] And we have discussed this ad nauseum as well. Please don't portray it as though the vote to invade Iraq (in Congress) was unanimous, or even close. That is disengenuous, and you are above it.

 

 

I do not know what "windfall" profits are. [/Quote] I'd say companies that are raking in $10 BILLION per quarter are making "windfall" profits, regardless of how you define it. Considering that those numbers will pale in comparison to what they will potentially make, I would hope that I wouldn't have to somehow quantify the concept for you.

 

 

Corporations gamble and take risks. [/Quote] Tell me again how many soldiers the oil companies have sent to Iraq? Tell me again how much of the cost of our invasion that they have footed the bill for?

 

Those risks are sometimes rewarded. [/Quote] In this case, they may well be rewarded without taking the risk.

 

 

The GOVERNMENT is not footing the bill for oil extraction or production. [/Quote] The GOVERNMENT darn sure footed the bill for the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps we see this differently, but I highly doubt that any extraction or production was going to take place in Iraq while they were still a sovereign nation.

 

The corporations are, and they are doing it with their own people and using their own capital. The return should go to them, and the government, of course, will tax them on it.

Let me know when our government divines a way to tax the oil companies for the 3,000 lives we spent to provide them access to those oil fields. If you can show me how the families of those that were killed and maimed in Iraq are compensated, and the $600 or $700 Billion dollars are put back into our economy, I'll be delighted to come over to your view that the oil companies are somehow entitled to reap the remaining rewards.

 

 

 

 

 

Frances

This doesn't have anything to do with my personal view of W. What your posing is not substantiated by any evidence that I have seen. There isn't a link between the oil corporations' profits and W's personal wealth.

 

Isn't faith a beautiful thing?

 

 

Frances

Isn't faith a beautiful thing?

 

Without evidence your theory is just as correct as mine.

 

And we have discussed this ad nauseum as well. Please don't portray it as though the vote to invade Iraq (in Congress) was unanimous, or even close. That is disengenuous, and you are above it.

 

I'd say companies that are raking in $10 BILLION per quarter are making "windfall" profits, regardless of how you define it. Considering that those numbers will pale in comparison to what they will potentially make, I would hope that I wouldn't have to somehow quantify the concept for you.

 

 

Tell me again how many soldiers the oil companies have sent to Iraq? Tell me again how much of the cost of our invasion that they have footed the bill for?

 

The GOVERNMENT darn sure footed the bill for the invasion of Iraq. Perhaps we see this differently, but I highly doubt that any extraction or production was going to take place in Iraq while they were still a sovereign nation.

 

Let me know when our government divines a way to tax the oil companies for the 3,000 lives we spent to provide them access to those oil fields. If you can show me how the families of those that were killed and maimed in Iraq are compensated, and the $600 or $700 Billion dollars are put back into our economy, I'll be delighted to come over to your view that the oil companies are somehow entitled to reap the remaining rewards.

 

Back to the article on the bill. I have to agree with you here. The oil companies exploit us as consumers and now they are going to be able to exploit us as taxpayers. I would rather see that money go back to paying off the war debt and rebuilding Iraq rather than line more oil CEO's pockets.