Who should manage the oil money in Irag?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Technosoul Yes but if Halliburton remains in control as the chief owner of the oil resources in Irag then when the Vice President returns to his old job as a CEO for that company (whom he still gets "back pay" from) then that would make it look like we went to war for that purpose, to help Make the Vice President rich in his old age. At least we can see a conflict of interest that would not smell right, not that anyone really cares anymore because we got so used to such corupition at high levels that we just srug it off as "so what" or we try to alter that perception with some fancy talk. Technosoul.

He did as you said, all that was legally requried by him to become the Vice Pesident, however there was a loophole because Halliburton claimed he past monies still due him which they were paying him via 'time payments'. It is legal to collect money owed in the past as long as you are not collecting "newly earned" money, or something like that. On his last tax forms he listed that income. However I no longer know of any links that I can provide to support that and the related legal mumble jumble behind that income. And so for that reason I guess you would have to just "skip" this posting unless someone can find some resources to back it up. It was once a news story during the first four years but not sure if he still is getting those checks this year. It was ruled that his receiving those payments was not legally a matter of "conflict of interest" by the authorities but some left wing groups do not agree.

Technosoul.

[Technosoul]

We must remember that most oil companies are international companies and they for the most part are not concerned with the internal politics of the country they are based in or drill oil form. The concern is for profit only. Their only concern is if a political party where oil is produced or drilled is not conforming to their international "ball game" rules.

With the international companies working in unity they can control production world wide and they can control in turn how much you must pay at your local gas pump based on that "supply and demend" system (which they have the power to manipulate).

Now Saddam was simply not conforming, he was producing and selling oil to some countries at cheaper rates then OPEC wanted. The compitition kept the cost of gas down even here in the USA at our gas pumps. Once his cheap oil was removed by removing Saddam their was no more compitition of any great influence in the world of oil manipulation. And you did witness that with the sudden surge in what you pay at your gas pumps. (which they blamed on other factors).

Now you are going to demand proof from me, where are my "links" that would support my insight you might ask. None. It was never allowed to become a news story, it is the "big secret" that you are not allowed to know about as part of the gas paying public. So you got a choice, take my word for it and find a way to effect an investigation and changes, or sit back and continue paying those hyped-up prices at your local pump.

The last guy who stood up to the oil and power grid industry got run out of office on a broomstick, his name was Gov. Grey Davis. (Gray Davis?). Now mum is the word on the political front.

That is my opinion (insight).

Technosoul.

[Scribbler1]

Tech, Why are you quoting (and responding to) your own post??

[rmnunez]

Techno, change your name to "oilophobic", you are 'in' with a crowd of conspiracy-theorists who argue without substance the world is controlled by "The Seven Sisters" (or however many there are now after the Russian auction and assorted mergers). Pipe-dreaming pipeliners playing their pipes to gullibles who are still waiting for that pipeline through Kosovo to emerge, they should be reaching Bulgaria by now. The vast Central Asian pipeline complex also fails to materialize as envisioned, certainly the Afghan spur is lacking. I've even seen suggested they are setting up an Iraq pipeline directly to Israel. In your dreams.

Do note oil greed is not an innate characteristic of Texans, the oil extracted is carefully accounted for, major western oil companies are not securing contracts via Bush behind Iraqi authorities' backs either. Oil is important, vital to continued stable economic growth and a crucial tool in the articulation of Bushian plans to democratize the Middle East.

[giuliano]

Quote by: rmnunez Pipe-dreaming pipeliners playing their pipes to gullibles who are still waiting for that pipeline through Kosovo to emerge, they should be reaching Bulgaria by now. The vast Central Asian pipeline complex also fails to materialize as envisioned, certainly the Afghan spur is lacking. I've even seen suggested they are setting up an Iraq pipeline directly to Israel. In your dreams.

the trans-afghan pipeline will be built in time. if you are basing your argument on the belief it won't be, it's a losing argument.

the US has already contributed to a pipeline built through kazakhstan and russia from the caspian to black seas.

[giuliano]

Quote by: Technosoul Now Saddam was simply not conforming, he was producing and selling oil to some countries at cheaper rates then OPEC wanted. The compitition kept the cost of gas down even here in the USA at our gas pumps.

in my opinion saddam was removed partly because:

a. he was not focussing on developing his oil industry. the US is busy pushing increased global supply (to lower prices) and saddam was not supplying. (this was broadly the same reason chavez got the CIA kiss of death in venezuela)

b. he was only letting in non-US oil companies such as from france and russia. he was deliberately excluding the US from playing in its favourite game.

c. he was a threat to neighbouring oil producers. every time he opened his stupid mouth about a pan-arabic solution or somesuch, oil markets freaked out, driving the oil price higher and causing major headaches for western economies.

[Morgan_Freeman]

That all sounds plausible, Juliano. Do you have any evidence that the administration had this stuff in mind?

[giuliano]

yes there is certainly some good evidence of that.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Hmmm... I didn't see anything about oil in that article.

[Dieval]

Quote by: giuliano yes there is certainly some good evidence of that.

I love this...the title of your link is "Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President"....This is almost funny because it doesn't even mention Clinton's mandate for "Regime Change" in Iraq in 1998...2 years before anything mentioned in the article..

[Scribbler1]

Even if Clinton had the same idea it doesn't mean Bush didn't plan to remove Saddam before 9/11 anyway. Clinton didn't do it and Bush did, and if Clinton had made the same mistakes Bush has the Conservatives would have been on him like white on rice, and deservedly so.

Clinton's plans, or lack of same is irrelevant.

[Dieval]

Of course Bush planned to do it. It was part of his job, thanks to Clinton. Had 9/11never happened the liberation of Iraq probably would never have happened, as it would have been much tougher to gain support for the idea.

[giuliano]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Hmmm... I didn't see anything about oil in that article.

you're right, my bad. this article explains it much better.

[giuliano]

Quote by: Dieval I love this...the title of your link is "Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President"....This is almost funny because it doesn't even mention Clinton's mandate for "Regime Change" in Iraq in 1998...2 years before anything mentioned in the article..

the key difference is between a policy of encouraging regime change, and one that planned a full-scale invasion.

what makes it even worse is that even with all that time in hand, they still botched the planning. i don't know how rumsfeld has kept his job so far.

[rmnunez]

One moves from "encouraging" to actually bringing about "regime change" through a natural and staggered process; first as Clinton tried, applying sanctions, maintaining deployments, ocassionally lobbing some missiles, keeping the pressure up. Unfortunately, sometimes this is not enough and results are desired sooner. It seems this was the case with Iraq. Either through missperceived WMD or terrorist threats, incapacity to maintain the effort indefinitely, perceived opportunity, impatience, or a combination of these, Bush determined it was time to go in.

[giuliano]

bush reminds me of that really angry kid at school who was dying to hit someone, and iraq the kid who always seemed to be the prime target, regardless of whether he deserved it.

saddam was an obvious target for a 'war president'.

[Technosoul]

The difference is that Clinton advocated a change in the leadership of Iraq, meaning he hoped the people in Irag would rise up and vote Saddam out of power or in some way to cause his removal by their own internal revolution. I do not think Clinton advocated a unlawful take over of that country with military force as was done by President Bush. Their is a difference.

Technosoul.

[rmnunez]

In the last election held in Iraq prior to intervention every Iraqi of voting age voted (no abstentions) and every one of them voted for Saddam (100% unanimity) so there was no chance of his ouster through internal dynamics.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rmnunez In the last election held in Iraq prior to intervention every Iraqi of voting age voted (no abstentions) and every one of them voted for Saddam (100% unanimity) so there was no chance of his ouster through internal dynamics.

I agree. I recall that soviet-style "election" and it is as you said. I think the hope here was that the people would get together in sufficient numbers and vote Saddam out with a bullet.

[rmnunez]

The expectation Saddam could be ousted through domestic uprising seems foolishly optimistic, he held on to authority for 30 years and built up a formidable repressive machine, it seems to me there was no hope for his ouster absent foreign intervention. I'm not sure whether this situation was more the 'fault' of the Iraqis who submitted or of Saddam who repressed them into submission.