[CLUE-Talk] More reasons why the War is about greed / oil / capitalism

[Randy Arabie]

On Tuesday,  1 April 2003 at  7:31:18 -0800, Jeffery Cann
<jc_cann at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>  + http://www.msnbc.com/news/893730.asp?0cv=CB10
> 
> If the goal of the Bush administration is to liberate
> Iraq, why would these individuals be worried about the
> U.N. inhibiting the U.S.?

There are many who question the effectiveness of the UN.  It certainly
doesn't represent US interests.

FWIW, tend to agree the with the Powell plan for postwar Iraq.

> Also, why has the period of U.S. military control
> moved from 6 months, as reported at the start of the
> war by Donald Rumsfeld to an 'indefinite period'?

Where was that reported?  I don't recall hearing Rumsfeld say that, nor
do I recall any quotes stating that.

> Finally, why are the real intentions of our actions in
> this unjust war now coming to light?  Stay tuned, it's
> going to get uglier.
> 
> Welcome to the United States, the new Imperialist of
> the 21st centruy.

I've yet to see these alleged "real" intentions.  The article simply
details the ongoing debate between the State Department and the Pentagon
on how best to rebuild Iraq.  The two sides of the debate are 1)
Military Occupational force under US Pentagon control and 2) Miliatry
and NGO structure under a UN umbrella.

It doesn't even mention the Iraqi oil.

Lets just consider the current disspositon of Iraqi oil.  Since the end
of the Gulf War, Iraq has been forbidden to freely produce it's oil.
They are allowed to produce under the UN administered "food for oil"
program.  I'll assert that under that program, the Iraqi regime is the
greatest beneficiary of the Iraqi oil.  Yes, oil is being produced and
sold on the market and some of the money is going to supply Iraqi
citizens with food and other neccesities.  But it is widely accepted
that the Iraqi regime are also siphoning off a substantial portion for
personal gain and to fund WMD programs.

Now, let's assume that Iraq were to peacefully disarm, which would
result in the lifting of the UN sanctions.  What would then happen to
the Iraqi oil?  The Iraqi regime would be free to issue contracts to
petroleum countries for the production of oil.  French, Russian, and
Chinese oil companies already hold large contracts for the production of
Iraqi oil.  This would be good.  Iraq could return to producing thier
quota, as set by OPEC.  Their economy could begin recovery.  The problem
is the Iraqi regime will not disarm.  Thus, the UN sanctions are likely
to remain in effect indefinately. Iraq's oil would remain in the
condition described in the paragraph above.

Now, let's consider the future, postwar Iraq with a new government.  The
new government will be free to issue contracts to petroleum countries
for the production of oil.  This would be good.  Iraq could return to
producing thier quota, as set by OPEC.  Their economy could begin
recovery.  

It seems the big issue everyone is raising is the potential for US
and/or UK based oil companies to get contracts to produce Iraqi oil.
This is equated to "stealing Iraqi oil".  I don't see how it is
stealing.  I agree, it might be unfair to the French, Russian, and
Chinese oil companies who already hold large contracts for the
production of Iraqi oil.  But that isn't the allegation being set forth.

No matter who ultimately develops and produces the Iraqi oil, it will be
sold at market prices and the Iraqi government will get a percentage.
Why, if Iraqi oil is produced by US or UK companies is it stealing, but
when produced by French, Russian, or Chinese companies it isn't?
-- 
Allons Rouler!
        
Randy
http://www.arabie.org/