Discussion:
Where is the Stolen Iraqi Oil?
(too old to reply)
miss calm
2003-12-20 23:09:40 UTC
Permalink
It is a huge mystery.
Before the War in Iraq the Anti War Coalition, The Democrats in the US, the
Left wing of the Labour Party and the whole of the Liberal-Democrat Party in
Britain all said that this was a 'War for Oil.'

But months have gone by and there has been no sign of the stolen Oil.
Gas/Petrol is still high at the pumps, there seem to be no Oil Tankers
sailing into New York or London loaded down with Iraqi Oil.
So where is the stolen Oil?
m***@yahoo.com
2003-12-21 05:17:06 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
miss calm
2003-12-21 11:58:58 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
Don W. McCollough
2003-12-22 00:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by miss calm
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Post by miss calm
It is a huge mystery.
Before the War in Iraq the Anti War Coalition, The Democrats in the US,
the
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Post by miss calm
Left wing of the Labour Party and the whole of the Liberal-Democrat
Party in
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Post by miss calm
Britain all said that this was a 'War for Oil.'
But months have gone by and there has been no sign of the stolen Oil.
Gas/Petrol is still high at the pumps, there seem to be no Oil Tankers
sailing into New York or London loaded down with Iraqi Oil.
So where is the stolen Oil?
From your many many daily posts in the past I know that you are an
extreme example of ignorance. You always support the American or
Israeli government, no matter what violence they concoct and no matter
what new lies they provide for continued oppression and occupation.
You are biased, Jewish and very uneducated.
You have no idea what kind of treasure 110 billion barrels of proven
reserves and another 220 billion of probable reserves (according to
our Department of Energy) is. US and UK oil companies were there up
till 1972. You think they don't have all the oil data from the past
and all the new data pillaged this year from the Iraqi oil ministry,
the only ministry the US military was told to save?
But if the UN are monitoring all Iraqs Oil Sales to make sure that the money
goes back into Iraq to pay civil servants, teachers, police, schools,
hospitals etc. then how is the US stealing the Oil?
The US have given 87 billion dollars to help with reconstruction.
The Oil Ministry is under Iraqi control and the Iraqi Transitional Council.
It is recognized by the UN and OPEC.
So please explain how we are stealing the Oil?
First of all, Paul Bremer is the overseer of the Food for Oil Program
in Iraq now. And the method of "stealing" oil is quite simple.
Charge ridiculous rates to produce, extract, and ship it out of Iraq.
Understand that these may be American companies which charge top
dollar to do what they do. All private companies have to do is put on
lien on the oil in exchange for thier services and they can get
reimbursed ad nauseum. This includes non-petroleum sector companies
as well. Or else you think these companies are going to do perform
these services without making a profit? No way. A certain percentage
of the oil funds will go back into the coffers of the Iraqi people,
but how much depends on the costs to both import and export it etc.
The American now have a monopoly on how much it is going to 'cost' to
produce oil from Iraq.
Post by miss calm
Post by m***@yahoo.com
330 billion barrels of reserves means tremendous geo-political power
and profits, for many decades to come. We know where these profits
will go. The occupiers pump the oil, get the money, use it the first
years for reconstruction and of course to pay American, yes
American!!!!!, companies to do all that work. That is not recycling
Iraqi oil into American coffers?
On longer terms reconstruction will be forgotten, and larger and
larger profits will be diverted to US and UK oil companies.
Please read the following analysis - the robbers may not succeed that
easily.
And I agree with Avnery: The stupid neocons, ideologues and gangsters
in and around the White House do not yet admit what quagmire they got
themselves into.
They launched the attack mainly for the oil, that's why they will want
to stay, with several military bases, with regular bombardments and
raids whenever needed, and the slow bleeding will continue for many
years.
And many more Iraqis will have to die.
Michael McKinley
The Americans invaded Iraq in order to remain there
By Uri Avnery
19 December 2003
The spectacle was disgusting.
"Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad
when
he stumbleth, lest the Lord see it, and it displeaseth Him, and He
turn away
His wrath from him!" Thus commandeth the ancient Jewish moral code
(Proverbs, 24, 16).
The writer of this warning knew, of course, that every person tends to
gloat
when his enemy falls. But he wanted to point out that this is an ugly
human
trait and one should try to overcome it.
And now a mighty world power has sunk to this level. It is repeatedly
displaying the spectacle of American soldiers looking for lice in the
hair
of a miserable Saddam and poking about among his teeth.
If it is possible at all to evoke pity for a man like Saddam, who is
responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands, the Americans have
achieved this. By showing him off as a drugged tramp, they created the
opposite effect from what they wanted. The Vatican has called for
mercy. The
public humiliation of an Arab leader, whatever one may think about
him,
evokes the deepest feelings of insult and fury among tens of millions
of
Arabs. These feelings will strive to express themselves violently.
This may
cost blood, much blood.
(Not long ago, the United States cried to high heaven when the Iraqis
showed
off some American prisoners. But there are apparently no mirrors in
Washington DC.)
The childish stories about the tremendous success of the American army
and
intelligence agencies are ridiculous. It is fairly certain that this
was
simply a case of a paid informer.
A trained eye could easily detect how the "spontaneous" outbursts of
joy
were staged: here a small group waving the flag of the Communist
Party,
there a few dozen people jumping like monkeys for the cameras -
probably the
same people who were jumping a year ago for the cameras of Saddam. Two
Arab
"journalists" producing a raucous show at the carefully staged press
conference of the American general. When Winston Churchill won a
terrible
war, he did not behave like George W. Bush. No Winston he.
I have not written about Iraq in this column since the end of "major
hostilities". I checked myself. I know that it is neither nice nor
wise to
say "I told you so". But it is very hard to write about Iraq without
using
these four words, since almost all the predictions of this column
before and
The Americans invaded Iraq in order to remain there
They did not invade because of "international terror". Nor because of
"weapons of mass destruction". It's the oil that drew them there.
The aim of the United States was not to topple Saddam and go home, but
to
create a permanent American military base in the Arab world, in a
country
that has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world and is
also
located within easy reach of the oil riches of Saudi Arabia and the
Caspian
Sea.
Now that is already quite clear. Saddam had no connections at all with
Osama
Bin-Laden. The "weapons of mass destruction" do not exist. The
Americans
have simply changed the reasons for the war after the event. ("First
make
war, than find a reason.") Now it is all about eliminating Saddam and
bringing democracy to Iraq.
Good. But Saddam has been eliminated - and the Americans are not
heading
home. Elections could be held at once. But the Americans refuse. They
want
to keep their marionettes in place, so they can invite the Americans
to stay
forever. The American occupation will last a long, long time. It is
not a
means. It is the aim.
The toppling of Saddam will not be the end of the war. It will only be
the
beginning
This forecast is now being confirmed in the most extreme fashion. No
people
resigns itself to foreign occupation. Occupation breeds resistance.
the
advancing Israelis were welcomed as liberators, because they drove the
Palestinians out. A few months later they were being shot at from all
sides,
because they did not go home. After 18 years and a thousand soldiers
killed,
they escaped under the cover of darkness "with their tail between
their
legs".
The Americans cannot absorb this simple lesson. They do not look upon
themselves as occupiers but as liberators who came to do good by the
Iraqi
people. They are convinced that the Iraqis are grateful and love them.
They
consoled themselves with a legend they invented: it is not Iraqi and
Arab
freedom fighters who are attacking the occupation army and its
collaborators, but die-hard henchmen of the evil Saddam.
But now the evil Saddam has been caught, and it appears that he had no
possibility at all of directing operations from his spider-hole. The
capture
of Saddam must mark the end of the legend about his die-hard
followers.
Iraq finds itself now in a classic colonial situation: a foreign
conqueror
is robbing the natives of their natural resources. Resistance groups
are
staging violent attacks, with a large part of the population
supporting
them.
Two hundred years ago such groups defeated the mighty Napoleon in
Spain. At
that time, the term "guerrilla" (little war) was coined.
What will happen now? It's all so predictable: reacting to the
operations of
the resistance, the occupation will become ever more brutal. That will
increase the support of the population for the guerrillas, and so
forth. The
vicious circle so well known to Israelis. That's how it happened in
Lebanon.
That's how it is happening now in the occupied Palestinian
territories.
The public humiliation of the defeated leader will only accelerate the
process.
A vanquished Saddam will be more dangerous than a victorious Saddam
The question arises: what to do with the prisoner?
The Americans have already said what they intend to do: hand him over
to
their Iraqi servants, so that he can be tried and executed in Iraq.
That would be a first-class blunder.
Nobody will believe in the fairness of such a trial. There is no way
it
could be fair, because in a fair trial Saddam would use the public
platform
to make his own accusations and reach out to hundreds of millions of
Arabs
and other Muslims.
The best thing would have been to let him escape to the Fiji islands,
there
to live out his life quietly, like Idi Amin in Saudi Arabia. But
George Bush
needs the ongoing humiliation of Saddam for his re-election campaign.
The only reasonable way out now is to transfer Saddam to The Hague. In
the
eyes of the world, he is entitled to the same treatment as another
political
mass murderer, Slobodan Milosevic. If he is treated differently, every
Muslim will rightly suspect that there is a double standard: one for a
Christian European leader, one for a Muslim Arab one.
But Bush will not be satisfied until the body of Saddam is hanging in
a
public square in Baghdad - perhaps the same square where his statue
stood
before it was toppled in a carefully staged TV spectacle.
The talk about bringing democracy to Iraq is hypocritical nonsense
In order to safeguard their occupation, the Americans need a
supportive
local regime. To use a World War II term: they need Quislings.
When the British created the Iraqi state as their protectorate, they
crowned
Emir Faisal, a scion of the Hashemite family from Mecca. In order to
keep
Iraq as their own protectorate, the Americans must crown their own
local
agents.
If truly democratic elections were held, the American agents would be
kicked
out in no time - if they were not lynched first. That is self-evident.
Therefore, there will be no really democratic elections.
Generally speaking, democracy cannot be "brought" anywhere. It cannot
be
implanted in a different society with a different culture, as if it
were a
tree. And, in any case, a tree needs fertile soil.
Western democracy has grown organically over the centuries, from the
village
community to the national parliament. To implant it by force in Iraqi
society, which is based on the tribe and the extended family
(khamulah) and
on different concepts and traditions, is a hopeless pursuit.
What happened to Western democracy when it was implanted in Japan? The
outer
forms are in place, the reality is quite different. What is happening
now to
Western democracy in Russia? Ask any Russian, and he will burst out
laughing.
Iraq will disintegrate
When we said it a year ago, it looked like wild speculation. Today it
is a
safe bet.
Only a brutal dictator like Saddam was able to hold the package
together.
Before the 1958 revolution, the British colonialists did it. In a
democratic
regime, there is no chance.
A simple fact: the Shi'as have a majority. They will rule. There is no
chance at all that they would institute a benevolent regime, after
their
long oppression by the Sunnis. There is no chance that the Sunnis in
central
Iraq, who despise the Shi'as, would accept their supremacy. There is
no
chance that the Kurds in the north, who have always fought for their
independence, would accept Arab rule - neither by Shi's nor by fellow
Sunnis. They hardly accept their fellow Kurds.
The Americans can prevent the disintegration of Iraq only by
maintaining an
occupation regime, open or disguised. They could also set up an
artificial
structure, a sham federation, in which Iraq would consist of three
autonomous parts. But that would be sheer make-believe.
When Iraq will cease to exist for practical purposes, a new balance of
power
will come about. For centuries Iraq has served as the eastern wall of
the
Arab world, a barrier against Iran - which has never forgotten the
days of
Cyrus, when it was the regional power. The fall of this wall will
change the
geopolitical situation in the entire region, which includes Israel.
The implosion of Iraq will be the signal for general anarchy: the Arab
world
will be in turmoil, Islamic fundamentalism will threaten all Arab
regimes,
the border between Turkey and the Kurdish Iraqi state will heat up,
between
Israel and Iran a nuclear balance of terror may or may not hold,
"international terror" will turn from legend to reality.
Since it is neither nice nor wise to say "I told you so," I will
restrain
myself.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist.
© Uri Avnery
miss calm
2003-12-22 00:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don W. McCollough
Post by miss calm
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Post by miss calm
It is a huge mystery.
Before the War in Iraq the Anti War Coalition, The Democrats in the US,
the
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Post by miss calm
Left wing of the Labour Party and the whole of the Liberal-Democrat
Party in
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Post by miss calm
Britain all said that this was a 'War for Oil.'
But months have gone by and there has been no sign of the stolen Oil.
Gas/Petrol is still high at the pumps, there seem to be no Oil Tankers
sailing into New York or London loaded down with Iraqi Oil.
So where is the stolen Oil?
From your many many daily posts in the past I know that you are an
extreme example of ignorance. You always support the American or
Israeli government, no matter what violence they concoct and no matter
what new lies they provide for continued oppression and occupation.
You are biased, Jewish and very uneducated.
You have no idea what kind of treasure 110 billion barrels of proven
reserves and another 220 billion of probable reserves (according to
our Department of Energy) is. US and UK oil companies were there up
till 1972. You think they don't have all the oil data from the past
and all the new data pillaged this year from the Iraqi oil ministry,
the only ministry the US military was told to save?
But if the UN are monitoring all Iraqs Oil Sales to make sure that the money
goes back into Iraq to pay civil servants, teachers, police, schools,
hospitals etc. then how is the US stealing the Oil?
The US have given 87 billion dollars to help with reconstruction.
The Oil Ministry is under Iraqi control and the Iraqi Transitional Council.
It is recognized by the UN and OPEC.
So please explain how we are stealing the Oil?
First of all, Paul Bremer is the overseer of the Food for Oil Program
in Iraq now. And the method of "stealing" oil is quite simple.
Charge ridiculous rates to produce, extract, and ship it out of Iraq.
Understand that these may be American companies which charge top
dollar to do what they do. All private companies have to do is put on
lien on the oil in exchange for thier services and they can get
reimbursed ad nauseum. This includes non-petroleum sector companies
as well. Or else you think these companies are going to do perform
these services without making a profit? No way. A certain percentage
of the oil funds will go back into the coffers of the Iraqi people,
but how much depends on the costs to both import and export it etc.
The American now have a monopoly on how much it is going to 'cost' to
produce oil from Iraq.
All that sounds like a great idea for a movie.
But the UN are monitoring Iraqi Oil and UN accountants are scrutinising all
the production and sales figures and monitoring costs and charges.
Given that how could the US be stealing Oil?
Are you suggesting that the UN are in the plot?
Post by Don W. McCollough
Post by miss calm
Post by m***@yahoo.com
330 billion barrels of reserves means tremendous geo-political power
and profits, for many decades to come. We know where these profits
will go. The occupiers pump the oil, get the money, use it the first
years for reconstruction and of course to pay American, yes
American!!!!!, companies to do all that work. That is not recycling
Iraqi oil into American coffers?
On longer terms reconstruction will be forgotten, and larger and
larger profits will be diverted to US and UK oil companies.
Please read the following analysis - the robbers may not succeed that
easily.
And I agree with Avnery: The stupid neocons, ideologues and gangsters
in and around the White House do not yet admit what quagmire they got
themselves into.
They launched the attack mainly for the oil, that's why they will want
to stay, with several military bases, with regular bombardments and
raids whenever needed, and the slow bleeding will continue for many
years.
And many more Iraqis will have to die.
Michael McKinley
The Americans invaded Iraq in order to remain there
By Uri Avnery
19 December 2003
The spectacle was disgusting.
"Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad
when
he stumbleth, lest the Lord see it, and it displeaseth Him, and He
turn away
His wrath from him!" Thus commandeth the ancient Jewish moral code
(Proverbs, 24, 16).
The writer of this warning knew, of course, that every person tends to
gloat
when his enemy falls. But he wanted to point out that this is an ugly
human
trait and one should try to overcome it.
And now a mighty world power has sunk to this level. It is repeatedly
displaying the spectacle of American soldiers looking for lice in the
hair
of a miserable Saddam and poking about among his teeth.
If it is possible at all to evoke pity for a man like Saddam, who is
responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands, the Americans have
achieved this. By showing him off as a drugged tramp, they created the
opposite effect from what they wanted. The Vatican has called for
mercy. The
public humiliation of an Arab leader, whatever one may think about
him,
evokes the deepest feelings of insult and fury among tens of millions
of
Arabs. These feelings will strive to express themselves violently.
This may
cost blood, much blood.
(Not long ago, the United States cried to high heaven when the Iraqis
showed
off some American prisoners. But there are apparently no mirrors in
Washington DC.)
The childish stories about the tremendous success of the American army
and
intelligence agencies are ridiculous. It is fairly certain that this
was
simply a case of a paid informer.
A trained eye could easily detect how the "spontaneous" outbursts of
joy
were staged: here a small group waving the flag of the Communist
Party,
there a few dozen people jumping like monkeys for the cameras -
probably the
same people who were jumping a year ago for the cameras of Saddam. Two
Arab
"journalists" producing a raucous show at the carefully staged press
conference of the American general. When Winston Churchill won a
terrible
war, he did not behave like George W. Bush. No Winston he.
I have not written about Iraq in this column since the end of "major
hostilities". I checked myself. I know that it is neither nice nor
wise to
say "I told you so". But it is very hard to write about Iraq without
using
these four words, since almost all the predictions of this column
before and
The Americans invaded Iraq in order to remain there
They did not invade because of "international terror". Nor because of
"weapons of mass destruction". It's the oil that drew them there.
The aim of the United States was not to topple Saddam and go home, but
to
create a permanent American military base in the Arab world, in a
country
that has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world and is
also
located within easy reach of the oil riches of Saudi Arabia and the
Caspian
Sea.
Now that is already quite clear. Saddam had no connections at all with
Osama
Bin-Laden. The "weapons of mass destruction" do not exist. The
Americans
have simply changed the reasons for the war after the event. ("First
make
war, han find a reason.") Now it is all about eliminating Saddam and
bringing democracy to Iraq.
Good. But Saddam has been eliminated - and the Americans are not
heading
home. Elections could be held at once. But the Americans refuse. They
want
to keep their marionettes in place, so they can invite the Americans
to stay
forever. The American occupation will last a long, long time. It is
not a
means. It is the aim.
The toppling of Saddam will not be the end of the war. It will only be
the
beginning
This forecast is now being confirmed in the most extreme fashion. No
people
resigns itself to foreign occupation. Occupation breeds resistance.
the
advancing Israelis were welcomed as liberators, because they drove the
Palestinians out. A few months later they were being shot at from all
sides,
because they did not go home. After 18 years and a thousand soldiers
killed,
they escaped under the cover of darkness "with their tail between
their
legs".
The Americans cannot absorb this simple lesson. They do not look upon
themselves as occupiers but as liberators who came to do good by the
Iraqi
people. They are convinced that the Iraqis are grateful and love them.
They
consoled themselves with a legend they invented: it is not Iraqi and
Arab
freedom fighters who are attacking the occupation army and its
collaborators, but die-hard henchmen of the evil Saddam.
But now the evil Saddam has been caught, and it appears that he had no
possibility at all of directing operations from his spider-hole. The
capture
of Saddam must mark the end of the legend about his die-hard
followers.
Iraq finds itself now in a classic colonial situation: a foreign
conqueror
is robbing the natives of their natural resources. Resistance groups
are
staging violent attacks, with a large part of the population
supporting
them.
Two hundred years ago such groups defeated the mighty Napoleon in
Spain. At
that time, the term "guerrilla" (little war) was coined.
What will happen now? It's all so predictable: reacting to the
operations of
the resistance, the occupation will become ever more brutal. That will
increase the support of the population for the guerrillas, and so
forth. The
vicious circle so well known to Israelis. That's how it happened in
Lebanon.
That's how it is happening now in the occupied Palestinian
territories.
The public humiliation of the defeated leader will only accelerate the
process.
A vanquished Saddam will be more dangerous than a victorious Saddam
The question arises: what to do with the prisoner?
The Americans have already said what they intend to do: hand him over
to
their Iraqi servants, so that he can be tried and executed in Iraq.
That would be a first-class blunder.
Nobody will believe in the fairness of such a trial. There is no way
it
could be fair, because in a fair trial Saddam would use the public
platform
to make his own accusations and reach out to hundreds of millions of
Arabs
and other Muslims.
The best thing would have been to let him escape to the Fiji islands,
there
to live out his life quietly, like Idi Amin in Saudi Arabia. But
George Bush
needs the ongoing humiliation of Saddam for his re-election campaign.
The only reasonable way out now is to transfer Saddam to The Hague. In
the
eyes of the world, he is entitled to the same treatment as another
political
mass murderer, Slobodan Milosevic. If he is treated differently, every
Muslim will rightly suspect that there is a double standard: one for a
Christian European leader, one for a Muslim Arab one.
But Bush will not be satisfied until the body of Saddam is hanging in
a
public square in Baghdad - perhaps the same square where his statue
stood
before it was toppled in a carefully staged TV spectacle.
The talk about bringing democracy to Iraq is hypocritical nonsense
In order to safeguard their occupation, the Americans need a
supportive
local regime. To use a World War II term: they need Quislings.
When the British created the Iraqi state as their protectorate, they
crowned
Emir Faisal, a scion of the Hashemite family from Mecca. In order to
keep
Iraq as their own protectorate, the Americans must crown their own
local
agents.
If truly democratic elections were held, the American agents would be
kicked
out in no time - if they were not lynched first. That is self-evident.
Therefore, there will be no really democratic elections.
Generally speaking, democracy cannot be "brought" anywhere. It cannot
be
implanted in a different society with a different culture, as if it
were a
tree. And, in any case, a tree needs fertile soil.
Western democracy has grown organically over the centuries, from the
village
community to the national parliament. To implant it by force in Iraqi
society, which is based on the tribe and the extended family
(khamulah) and
on different concepts and traditions, is a hopeless pursuit.
What happened to Western democracy when it was implanted in Japan? The
outer
forms are in place, the reality is quite different. What is happening
now to
Western democracy in Russia? Ask any Russian, and he will burst out
laughing.
Iraq will disintegrate
When we said it a year ago, it looked like wild speculation. Today it
is a
safe bet.
Only a brutal dictator like Saddam was able to hold the package
together.
Before the 1958 revolution, the British colonialists did it. In a
democratic
regime, there is no chance.
A simple fact: the Shi'as have a majority. They will rule. There is no
chance at all that they would institute a benevolent regime, after
their
long oppression by the Sunnis. There is no chance that the Sunnis in
central
Iraq, who despise the Shi'as, would accept their supremacy. There is
no
chance that the Kurds in the north, who have always fought for their
independence, would accept Arab rule - neither by Shi's nor by fellow
Sunnis. They hardly accept their fellow Kurds.
The Americans can prevent the disintegration of Iraq only by
maintaining an
occupation regime, open or disguised. They could also set up an
artificial
structure, a sham federation, in which Iraq would consist of three
autonomous parts. But that would be sheer make-believe.
When Iraq will cease to exist for practical purposes, a new balance of
power
will come about. For centuries Iraq has served as the eastern wall of
the
Arab world, a barrier against Iran - which has never forgotten the
days of
Cyrus, when it was the regional power. The fall of this wall will
change the
geopolitical situation in the entire region, which includes Israel.
The implosion of Iraq will be the signal for general anarchy: the Arab
world
will be in turmoil, Islamic fundamentalism will threaten all Arab
regimes,
the border between Turkey and the Kurdish Iraqi state will heat up,
between
Israel and Iran a nuclear balance of terror may or may not hold,
"international terror" will turn from legend to reality.
Since it is neither nice nor wise to say "I told you so," I will
restrain
myself.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist.
© Uri Avnery
Kevin
2003-12-21 15:55:26 UTC
Permalink
m9mckinley:

You are obviously very ignorant and/or blinded by your hate of America.

Under the UN oil for food program, French and the Russian companies were
getting paid for pumping the oil and Saddam kept remaining profits for
himself. Not for the well being of his people. So now , yes foreign
companies will in the short term play a big role in pumping the oil and will
make some money. The difference is 1) they will be US companies instead of
French/Russian and 2) much more money will go to the people and
infrastructure of Iraq.

So quit trying to say that the US is there to "steal" the oil. It is just a
lie. If you believe it you are ignorant.
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Post by miss calm
It is a huge mystery.
Before the War in Iraq the Anti War Coalition, The Democrats in the US, the
Left wing of the Labour Party and the whole of the Liberal-Democrat Party in
Britain all said that this was a 'War for Oil.'
But months have gone by and there has been no sign of the stolen Oil.
Gas/Petrol is still high at the pumps, there seem to be no Oil Tankers
sailing into New York or London loaded down with Iraqi Oil.
So where is the stolen Oil?
From your many many daily posts in the past I know that you are an
extreme example of ignorance. You always support the American or
Israeli government, no matter what violence they concoct and no matter
what new lies they provide for continued oppression and occupation.
You are biased, Jewish and very uneducated.
You have no idea what kind of treasure 110 billion barrels of proven
reserves and another 220 billion of probable reserves (according to
our Department of Energy) is. US and UK oil companies were there up
till 1972. You think they don't have all the oil data from the past
and all the new data pillaged this year from the Iraqi oil ministry,
the only ministry the US military was told to save?
330 billion barrels of reserves means tremendous geo-political power
and profits, for many decades to come. We know where these profits
will go. The occupiers pump the oil, get the money, use it the first
years for reconstruction and of course to pay American, yes
American!!!!!, companies to do all that work. That is not recycling
Iraqi oil into American coffers?
On longer terms reconstruction will be forgotten, and larger and
larger profits will be diverted to US and UK oil companies.
Please read the following analysis - the robbers may not succeed that
easily.
And I agree with Avnery: The stupid neocons, ideologues and gangsters
in and around the White House do not yet admit what quagmire they got
themselves into.
They launched the attack mainly for the oil, that's why they will want
to stay, with several military bases, with regular bombardments and
raids whenever needed, and the slow bleeding will continue for many
years.
And many more Iraqis will have to die.
Michael McKinley
The Americans invaded Iraq in order to remain there
By Uri Avnery
19 December 2003
The spectacle was disgusting.
"Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad
when
he stumbleth, lest the Lord see it, and it displeaseth Him, and He
turn away
His wrath from him!" Thus commandeth the ancient Jewish moral code
(Proverbs, 24, 16).
The writer of this warning knew, of course, that every person tends to
gloat
when his enemy falls. But he wanted to point out that this is an ugly
human
trait and one should try to overcome it.
And now a mighty world power has sunk to this level. It is repeatedly
displaying the spectacle of American soldiers looking for lice in the
hair
of a miserable Saddam and poking about among his teeth.
If it is possible at all to evoke pity for a man like Saddam, who is
responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands, the Americans have
achieved this. By showing him off as a drugged tramp, they created the
opposite effect from what they wanted. The Vatican has called for
mercy. The
public humiliation of an Arab leader, whatever one may think about
him,
evokes the deepest feelings of insult and fury among tens of millions
of
Arabs. These feelings will strive to express themselves violently.
This may
cost blood, much blood.
(Not long ago, the United States cried to high heaven when the Iraqis
showed
off some American prisoners. But there are apparently no mirrors in
Washington DC.)
The childish stories about the tremendous success of the American army
and
intelligence agencies are ridiculous. It is fairly certain that this
was
simply a case of a paid informer.
A trained eye could easily detect how the "spontaneous" outbursts of
joy
were staged: here a small group waving the flag of the Communist
Party,
there a few dozen people jumping like monkeys for the cameras -
probably the
same people who were jumping a year ago for the cameras of Saddam. Two
Arab
"journalists" producing a raucous show at the carefully staged press
conference of the American general. When Winston Churchill won a
terrible
war, he did not behave like George W. Bush. No Winston he.
I have not written about Iraq in this column since the end of "major
hostilities". I checked myself. I know that it is neither nice nor
wise to
say "I told you so". But it is very hard to write about Iraq without
using
these four words, since almost all the predictions of this column
before and
The Americans invaded Iraq in order to remain there
They did not invade because of "international terror". Nor because of
"weapons of mass destruction". It's the oil that drew them there.
The aim of the United States was not to topple Saddam and go home, but
to
create a permanent American military base in the Arab world, in a
country
that has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world and is
also
located within easy reach of the oil riches of Saudi Arabia and the
Caspian
Sea.
Now that is already quite clear. Saddam had no connections at all with
Osama
Bin-Laden. The "weapons of mass destruction" do not exist. The
Americans
have simply changed the reasons for the war after the event. ("First
make
war, than find a reason.") Now it is all about eliminating Saddam and
bringing democracy to Iraq.
Good. But Saddam has been eliminated - and the Americans are not
heading
home. Elections could be held at once. But the Americans refuse. They
want
to keep their marionettes in place, so they can invite the Americans
to stay
forever. The American occupation will last a long, long time. It is
not a
means. It is the aim.
The toppling of Saddam will not be the end of the war. It will only be
the
beginning
This forecast is now being confirmed in the most extreme fashion. No
people
resigns itself to foreign occupation. Occupation breeds resistance.
the
advancing Israelis were welcomed as liberators, because they drove the
Palestinians out. A few months later they were being shot at from all
sides,
because they did not go home. After 18 years and a thousand soldiers
killed,
they escaped under the cover of darkness "with their tail between
their
legs".
The Americans cannot absorb this simple lesson. They do not look upon
themselves as occupiers but as liberators who came to do good by the
Iraqi
people. They are convinced that the Iraqis are grateful and love them.
They
consoled themselves with a legend they invented: it is not Iraqi and
Arab
freedom fighters who are attacking the occupation army and its
collaborators, but die-hard henchmen of the evil Saddam.
But now the evil Saddam has been caught, and it appears that he had no
possibility at all of directing operations from his spider-hole. The
capture
of Saddam must mark the end of the legend about his die-hard
followers.
Iraq finds itself now in a classic colonial situation: a foreign
conqueror
is robbing the natives of their natural resources. Resistance groups
are
staging violent attacks, with a large part of the population
supporting
them.
Two hundred years ago such groups defeated the mighty Napoleon in
Spain. At
that time, the term "guerrilla" (little war) was coined.
What will happen now? It's all so predictable: reacting to the
operations of
the resistance, the occupation will become ever more brutal. That will
increase the support of the population for the guerrillas, and so
forth. The
vicious circle so well known to Israelis. That's how it happened in
Lebanon.
That's how it is happening now in the occupied Palestinian
territories.
The public humiliation of the defeated leader will only accelerate the
process.
A vanquished Saddam will be more dangerous than a victorious Saddam
The question arises: what to do with the prisoner?
The Americans have already said what they intend to do: hand him over
to
their Iraqi servants, so that he can be tried and executed in Iraq.
That would be a first-class blunder.
Nobody will believe in the fairness of such a trial. There is no way
it
could be fair, because in a fair trial Saddam would use the public
platform
to make his own accusations and reach out to hundreds of millions of
Arabs
and other Muslims.
The best thing would have been to let him escape to the Fiji islands,
there
to live out his life quietly, like Idi Amin in Saudi Arabia. But
George Bush
needs the ongoing humiliation of Saddam for his re-election campaign.
The only reasonable way out now is to transfer Saddam to The Hague. In
the
eyes of the world, he is entitled to the same treatment as another
political
mass murderer, Slobodan Milosevic. If he is treated differently, every
Muslim will rightly suspect that there is a double standard: one for a
Christian European leader, one for a Muslim Arab one.
But Bush will not be satisfied until the body of Saddam is hanging in
a
public square in Baghdad - perhaps the same square where his statue
stood
before it was toppled in a carefully staged TV spectacle.
The talk about bringing democracy to Iraq is hypocritical nonsense
In order to safeguard their occupation, the Americans need a
supportive
local regime. To use a World War II term: they need Quislings.
When the British created the Iraqi state as their protectorate, they
crowned
Emir Faisal, a scion of the Hashemite family from Mecca. In order to
keep
Iraq as their own protectorate, the Americans must crown their own
local
agents.
If truly democratic elections were held, the American agents would be
kicked
out in no time - if they were not lynched first. That is self-evident.
Therefore, there will be no really democratic elections.
Generally speaking, democracy cannot be "brought" anywhere. It cannot
be
implanted in a different society with a different culture, as if it
were a
tree. And, in any case, a tree needs fertile soil.
Western democracy has grown organically over the centuries, from the
village
community to the national parliament. To implant it by force in Iraqi
society, which is based on the tribe and the extended family
(khamulah) and
on different concepts and traditions, is a hopeless pursuit.
What happened to Western democracy when it was implanted in Japan? The
outer
forms are in place, the reality is quite different. What is happening
now to
Western democracy in Russia? Ask any Russian, and he will burst out
laughing.
Iraq will disintegrate
When we said it a year ago, it looked like wild speculation. Today it
is a
safe bet.
Only a brutal dictator like Saddam was able to hold the package
together.
Before the 1958 revolution, the British colonialists did it. In a
democratic
regime, there is no chance.
A simple fact: the Shi'as have a majority. They will rule. There is no
chance at all that they would institute a benevolent regime, after
their
long oppression by the Sunnis. There is no chance that the Sunnis in
central
Iraq, who despise the Shi'as, would accept their supremacy. There is
no
chance that the Kurds in the north, who have always fought for their
independence, would accept Arab rule - neither by Shi's nor by fellow
Sunnis. They hardly accept their fellow Kurds.
The Americans can prevent the disintegration of Iraq only by
maintaining an
occupation regime, open or disguised. They could also set up an
artificial
structure, a sham federation, in which Iraq would consist of three
autonomous parts. But that would be sheer make-believe.
When Iraq will cease to exist for practical purposes, a new balance of
power
will come about. For centuries Iraq has served as the eastern wall of
the
Arab world, a barrier against Iran - which has never forgotten the
days of
Cyrus, when it was the regional power. The fall of this wall will
change the
geopolitical situation in the entire region, which includes Israel.
The implosion of Iraq will be the signal for general anarchy: the Arab
world
will be in turmoil, Islamic fundamentalism will threaten all Arab
regimes,
the border between Turkey and the Kurdish Iraqi state will heat up,
between
Israel and Iran a nuclear balance of terror may or may not hold,
"international terror" will turn from legend to reality.
Since it is neither nice nor wise to say "I told you so," I will
restrain
myself.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist.
© Uri Avnery
miss calm
2003-12-21 16:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin
You are obviously very ignorant and/or blinded by your hate of America.
Under the UN oil for food program, French and the Russian companies were
getting paid for pumping the oil and Saddam kept remaining profits for
himself. Not for the well being of his people. So now , yes foreign
companies will in the short term play a big role in pumping the oil and will
make some money. The difference is 1) they will be US companies instead of
French/Russian and 2) much more money will go to the people and
infrastructure of Iraq.
So quit trying to say that the US is there to "steal" the oil. It is just a
lie. If you believe it you are ignorant.
The UN is monitoring all Oil Sales to ensure that the profits go to the
Iraqis.
Post by Kevin
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Post by miss calm
It is a huge mystery.
Before the War in Iraq the Anti War Coalition, The Democrats in the
US,
Post by Kevin
the
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Post by miss calm
Left wing of the Labour Party and the whole of the Liberal-Democrat
Party in
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Post by miss calm
Britain all said that this was a 'War for Oil.'
But months have gone by and there has been no sign of the stolen Oil.
Gas/Petrol is still high at the pumps, there seem to be no Oil Tankers
sailing into New York or London loaded down with Iraqi Oil.
So where is the stolen Oil?
From your many many daily posts in the past I know that you are an
extreme example of ignorance. You always support the American or
Israeli government, no matter what violence they concoct and no matter
what new lies they provide for continued oppression and occupation.
You are biased, Jewish and very uneducated.
You have no idea what kind of treasure 110 billion barrels of proven
reserves and another 220 billion of probable reserves (according to
our Department of Energy) is. US and UK oil companies were there up
till 1972. You think they don't have all the oil data from the past
and all the new data pillaged this year from the Iraqi oil ministry,
the only ministry the US military was told to save?
330 billion barrels of reserves means tremendous geo-political power
and profits, for many decades to come. We know where these profits
will go. The occupiers pump the oil, get the money, use it the first
years for reconstruction and of course to pay American, yes
American!!!!!, companies to do all that work. That is not recycling
Iraqi oil into American coffers?
On longer terms reconstruction will be forgotten, and larger and
larger profits will be diverted to US and UK oil companies.
Please read the following analysis - the robbers may not succeed that
easily.
And I agree with Avnery: The stupid neocons, ideologues and gangsters
in and around the White House do not yet admit what quagmire they got
themselves into.
They launched the attack mainly for the oil, that's why they will want
to stay, with several military bases, with regular bombardments and
raids whenever needed, and the slow bleeding will continue for many
years.
And many more Iraqis will have to die.
Michael McKinley
The Americans invaded Iraq in order to remain there
By Uri Avnery
19 December 2003
The spectacle was disgusting.
"Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad
when
he stumbleth, lest the Lord see it, and it displeaseth Him, and He
turn away
His wrath from him!" Thus commandeth the ancient Jewish moral code
(Proverbs, 24, 16).
The writer of this warning knew, of course, that every person tends to
gloat
when his enemy falls. But he wanted to point out that this is an ugly
human
trait and one should try to overcome it.
And now a mighty world power has sunk to this level. It is repeatedly
displaying the spectacle of American soldiers looking for lice in the
hair
of a miserable Saddam and poking about among his teeth.
If it is possible at all to evoke pity for a man like Saddam, who is
responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands, the Americans have
achieved this. By showing him off as a drugged tramp, they created the
opposite effect from what they wanted. The Vatican has called for
mercy. The
public humiliation of an Arab leader, whatever one may think about
him,
evokes the deepest feelings of insult and fury among tens of millions
of
Arabs. These feelings will strive to express themselves violently.
This may
cost blood, much blood.
(Not long ago, the United States cried to high heaven when the Iraqis
showed
off some American prisoners. But there are apparently no mirrors in
Washington DC.)
The childish stories about the tremendous success of the American army
and
intelligence agencies are ridiculous. It is fairly certain that this
was
simply a case of a paid informer.
A trained eye could easily detect how the "spontaneous" outbursts of
joy
were staged: here a small group waving the flag of the Communist
Party,
there a few dozen people jumping like monkeys for the cameras -
probably the
same people who were jumping a year ago for the cameras of Saddam. Two
Arab
"journalists" producing a raucous show at the carefully staged press
conference of the American general. When Winston Churchill won a
terrible
war, he did not behave like George W. Bush. No Winston he.
I have not written about Iraq in this column since the end of "major
hostilities". I checked myself. I know that it is neither nice nor
wise to
say "I told you so". But it is very hard to write about Iraq without
using
these four words, since almost all the predictions of this column
before and
The Americans invaded Iraq in order to remain there
They did not invade because of "international terror". Nor because of
"weapons of mass destruction". It's the oil that drew them there.
The aim of the United States was not to topple Saddam and go home, but
to
create a permanent American military base in the Arab world, in a
country
that has the second largest proven oil reserves in the world and is
also
located within easy reach of the oil riches of Saudi Arabia and the
Caspian
Sea.
Now that is already quite clear. Saddam had no connections at all with
Osama
Bin-Laden. The "weapons of mass destruction" do not exist. The
Americans
have simply changed the reasons for the war after the event. ("First
make
war, than find a reason.") Now it is all about eliminating Saddam and
bringing democracy to Iraq.
Good. But Saddam has been eliminated - and the Americans are not
heading
home. Elections could be held at once. But the Americans refuse. They
want
to keep their marionettes in place, so they can invite the Americans
to stay
forever. The American occupation will last a long, long time. It is
not a
means. It is the aim.
The toppling of Saddam will not be the end of the war. It will only be
the
beginning
This forecast is now being confirmed in the most extreme fashion. No
people
resigns itself to foreign occupation. Occupation breeds resistance.
the
advancing Israelis were welcomed as liberators, because they drove the
Palestinians out. A few months later they were being shot at from all
sides,
because they did not go home. After 18 years and a thousand soldiers
killed,
they escaped under the cover of darkness "with their tail between
their
legs".
The Americans cannot absorb this simple lesson. They do not look upon
themselves as occupiers but as liberators who came to do good by the
Iraqi
people. They are convinced that the Iraqis are grateful and love them.
They
consoled themselves with a legend they invented: it is not Iraqi and
Arab
freedom fighters who are attacking the occupation army and its
collaborators, but die-hard henchmen of the evil Saddam.
But now the evil Saddam has been caught, and it appears that he had no
possibility at all of directing operations from his spider-hole. The
capture
of Saddam must mark the end of the legend about his die-hard
followers.
Iraq finds itself now in a classic colonial situation: a foreign
conqueror
is robbing the natives of their natural resources. Resistance groups
are
staging violent attacks, with a large part of the population
supporting
them.
Two hundred years ago such groups defeated the mighty Napoleon in
Spain. At
that time, the term "guerrilla" (little war) was coined.
What will happen now? It's all so predictable: reacting to the
operations of
the resistance, the occupation will become ever more brutal. That will
increase the support of the population for the guerrillas, and so
forth. The
vicious circle so well known to Israelis. That's how it happened in
Lebanon.
That's how it is happening now in the occupied Palestinian
territories.
The public humiliation of the defeated leader will only accelerate the
process.
A vanquished Saddam will be more dangerous than a victorious Saddam
The question arises: what to do with the prisoner?
The Americans have already said what they intend to do: hand him over
to
their Iraqi servants, so that he can be tried and executed in Iraq.
That would be a first-class blunder.
Nobody will believe in the fairness of such a trial. There is no way
it
could be fair, because in a fair trial Saddam would use the public
platform
to make his own accusations and reach out to hundreds of millions of
Arabs
and other Muslims.
The best thing would have been to let him escape to the Fiji islands,
there
to live out his life quietly, like Idi Amin in Saudi Arabia. But
George Bush
needs the ongoing humiliation of Saddam for his re-election campaign.
The only reasonable way out now is to transfer Saddam to The Hague. In
the
eyes of the world, he is entitled to the same treatment as another
political
mass murderer, Slobodan Milosevic. If he is treated differently, every
Muslim will rightly suspect that there is a double standard: one for a
Christian European leader, one for a Muslim Arab one.
But Bush will not be satisfied until the body of Saddam is hanging in
a
public square in Baghdad - perhaps the same square where his statue
stood
before it was toppled in a carefully staged TV spectacle.
The talk about bringing democracy to Iraq is hypocritical nonsense
In order to safeguard their occupation, the Americans need a
supportive
local regime. To use a World War II term: they need Quislings.
When the British created the Iraqi state as their protectorate, they
crowned
Emir Faisal, a scion of the Hashemite family from Mecca. In order to
keep
Iraq as their own protectorate, the Americans must crown their own
local
agents.
If truly democratic elections were held, the American agents would be
kicked
out in no time - if they were not lynched first. That is self-evident.
Therefore, there will be no really democratic elections.
Generally speaking, democracy cannot be "brought" anywhere. It cannot
be
implanted in a different society with a different culture, as if it
were a
tree. And, in any case, a tree needs fertile soil.
Western democracy has grown organically over the centuries, from the
village
community to the national parliament. To implant it by force in Iraqi
society, which is based on the tribe and the extended family
(khamulah) and
on different concepts and traditions, is a hopeless pursuit.
What happened to Western democracy when it was implanted in Japan? The
outer
forms are in place, the reality is quite different. What is happening
now to
Western democracy in Russia? Ask any Russian, and he will burst out
laughing.
Iraq will disintegrate
When we said it a year ago, it looked like wild speculation. Today it
is a
safe bet.
Only a brutal dictator like Saddam was able to hold the package
together.
Before the 1958 revolution, the British colonialists did it. In a
democratic
regime, there is no chance.
A simple fact: the Shi'as have a majority. They will rule. There is no
chance at all that they would institute a benevolent regime, after
their
long oppression by the Sunnis. There is no chance that the Sunnis in
central
Iraq, who despise the Shi'as, would accept their supremacy. There is
no
chance that the Kurds in the north, who have always fought for their
independence, would accept Arab rule - neither by Shi's nor by fellow
Sunnis. They hardly accept their fellow Kurds.
The Americans can prevent the disintegration of Iraq only by
maintaining an
occupation regime, open or disguised. They could also set up an
artificial
structure, a sham federation, in which Iraq would consist of three
autonomous parts. But that would be sheer make-believe.
When Iraq will cease to exist for practical purposes, a new balance of
power
will come about. For centuries Iraq has served as the eastern wall of
the
Arab world, a barrier against Iran - which has never forgotten the
days of
Cyrus, when it was the regional power. The fall of this wall will
change the
geopolitical situation in the entire region, which includes Israel.
The implosion of Iraq will be the signal for general anarchy: the Arab
world
will be in turmoil, Islamic fundamentalism will threaten all Arab
regimes,
the border between Turkey and the Kurdish Iraqi state will heat up,
between
Israel and Iran a nuclear balance of terror may or may not hold,
"international terror" will turn from legend to reality.
Since it is neither nice nor wise to say "I told you so," I will
restrain
myself.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist.
© Uri Avnery
Lisa R.
2003-12-21 05:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by miss calm
It is a huge mystery.
Before the War in Iraq the Anti War Coalition, The Democrats in the US, the
Left wing of the Labour Party and the whole of the Liberal-Democrat Party in
Britain all said that this was a 'War for Oil.'
But months have gone by and there has been no sign of the stolen Oil.
Gas/Petrol is still high at the pumps, there seem to be no Oil Tankers
sailing into New York or London loaded down with Iraqi Oil.
So where is the stolen Oil?
It's still the property of the Iraqi state. Eventually, it will be privatized.

Lisa
Kevin
2003-12-21 16:51:47 UTC
Permalink
Wrong Lisa. The oil will always belong to the Iraqi state. It is the
pumping and distribution that will be privatized. Those pumping and
distributing the oil will pay Iraq for the oil. Just as it was before
Saddam was ousted.

Understand how it works now?
Post by Lisa R.
Post by miss calm
It is a huge mystery.
Before the War in Iraq the Anti War Coalition, The Democrats in the US, the
Left wing of the Labour Party and the whole of the Liberal-Democrat Party in
Britain all said that this was a 'War for Oil.'
But months have gone by and there has been no sign of the stolen Oil.
Gas/Petrol is still high at the pumps, there seem to be no Oil Tankers
sailing into New York or London loaded down with Iraqi Oil.
So where is the stolen Oil?
It's still the property of the Iraqi state. Eventually, it will be privatized.
Lisa
Lisa R.
2003-12-22 15:24:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin
Wrong Lisa. The oil will always belong to the Iraqi state. It is the
pumping and distribution that will be privatized. Those pumping and
distributing the oil will pay Iraq for the oil. Just as it was before
Saddam was ousted.
Understand how it works now?
Not exactly. You may be right. But when Russia's oil fields were
privatized, didn't the fields themselves become private property?

Any reliable links on this?


Lisa
Light Templar
2003-12-23 02:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lisa R.
Post by Kevin
Wrong Lisa. The oil will always belong to the Iraqi state. It is the
pumping and distribution that will be privatized. Those pumping and
distributing the oil will pay Iraq for the oil. Just as it was before
Saddam was ousted.
Understand how it works now?
Not exactly. You may be right. But when Russia's oil fields were
privatized, didn't the fields themselves become private property?
Any reliable links on this?
Lisa
As far as Iraq goes, it's all speculation at this point how the oil
infrastructure will be
fleshed out.
Lisa R.
2003-12-22 17:01:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevin
Wrong Lisa. The oil will always belong to the Iraqi state. It is the
pumping and distribution that will be privatized. Those pumping and
distributing the oil will pay Iraq for the oil. Just as it was before
Saddam was ousted.
Understand how it works now?
Actually, you're wrong. Read "The Iraqi People's Fund" in today's
Wall Street Journal. The author, Vernon Smith, recommends that Iraq
auctions off "existing producing oil properties" as well as
refineries, pipelines and terminal facilities.

Smith also recommends that the proceeds be invested in a giant mutual
fund with tradable shares. An Iraqi could, if he wanted, cash out his
shares to start a business.

I wonder how mutual fund companies are doing now? What are the risks
in this scheme? I'm sure there are plenty of them.


Lisa
Light Templar
2003-12-23 02:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lisa R.
Post by Kevin
Wrong Lisa. The oil will always belong to the Iraqi state. It is the
pumping and distribution that will be privatized. Those pumping and
distributing the oil will pay Iraq for the oil. Just as it was before
Saddam was ousted.
Understand how it works now?
Actually, you're wrong. Read "The Iraqi People's Fund" in today's
Wall Street Journal. The author, Vernon Smith, recommends that Iraq
auctions off "existing producing oil properties" as well as
refineries, pipelines and terminal facilities.
Smith also recommends that the proceeds be invested in a giant mutual
fund with tradable shares. An Iraqi could, if he wanted, cash out his
shares to start a business.
I wonder how mutual fund companies are doing now? What are the risks
in this scheme? I'm sure there are plenty of them.
Mutual funds are generally low to medium risk, over other forms of
investment, due
to the diversity of investment. You have to keep your eye on them and plan
though.
8***@gmail.com
2012-11-03 00:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by miss calm
It is a huge mystery.
Before the War in Iraq the Anti War Coalition, The Democrats in the US, the
Left wing of the Labour Party and the whole of the Liberal-Democrat Party in
Britain all said that this was a 'War for Oil.'
But months have gone by and there has been no sign of the stolen Oil.
Gas/Petrol is still high at the pumps, there seem to be no Oil Tankers
sailing into New York or London loaded down with Iraqi Oil.
So where is the stolen Oil?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...