Comments on: GPF on Great Iraq Oil Ripoff

By: Randy Morris

Randy Morris — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 19:30:14 +0000

No arguments here. Thanks.

By: Comandante Gringo

Comandante Gringo — Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:29:47 +0000

That’s pretty much it, Randy — just that this crew went in like bulls thru a china shop, upsetting someone else’s long-term plans… Thus the infighting once the bulls were demonstrated to be full of it and the first party could regain some previously-lost loyalty, etc. elsewhere.

But a cowpox on both their houses. All factions of U.S. and international capital must go to Hell. Along with Saddam & Satan.

By: Randy Morris

Randy Morris — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 21:55:23 +0000

I’m no foreign policy expert, but I enjoy theorizing for personal educational purposes.

Do you suppose that the ten-year interim with its accompanying sanctions and airstrikes, etc. was intended to “soften up” the Iraqi infrastructure prior to our commandeering their country permanently?

It’s a tempting theory, but it also seems that there was some political reluctance on the part of Bush 1 to making the commitment.

We may never know for sure, but it can be entertaining to try to interpret their convoluted intentions.

By: anna missed

anna missed — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:57:59 +0000

This may explain Chalabi’s recent visit with big dick himself. He has had this “I was against privitization, before I was for it” explanation on the issue.And while he might like to be the next PM, the money is right where he is — the oil ministry — and thats where he’ll stay.

By: Dave-Leon

Dave-Leon — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 19:43:37 +0000

Scanning through the full report, I found it interesting to see where this nefarious cast of characters stood under the Baathist regime, and that Allawi became Minister of Oil in the interim government. Seemingly, America has had it’s pawns and fall guys in place for some time leading up till now. At this point, Iraq has virtually no choice but to consent to the privatisation of their oil fields – their economy is facing off with a 20 billion dollar collateral damage bill (I read the IMF is already pressuring Iraqi leaders into taking out a “loan”), plus the revenues lost if foreign companies seize control of the oil. There seems to be little hope left for any kind of Iraqi recovery from this war, no matter how many promises our politicians make to us and them. It leads me to wonder why the US ever pulled out of Iraq in the first Gulf War – was there something to be gained by delaying the inevitable? Was it because the defense of Kuwait cover story just didn’t hold enough weight, unlike 9/11 and WMD’s? Or was it maybe that Sadaam had the eggs to set many of those oil fields on fire, showing that he was an unexpected force to be reckoned with and therefore sending the US back home to regroup and concoct this current mess?
No one in the US government or any of it’s wealthy allies has the interest of Iraqi civilians in mind. This is business. Government has been privatised itself essentially – would anyone expect the employee of a rich country to do anything unprofitable for it? Our elected officials and our congress appeal to the public’s mass sense of greed to keep this war justified. All the freedom rhetoric is just double talk for the subjugation of non-incorporated nations into the global economy, even if they are incapable of sustaining their position within that economy.
I hate to admit it, but the so-called insurgencies and urban guerillas in Iraq seem to be the most concerned with the plight of their people, even if they don’t understand the leviathan plot thickening around them.

By: Consumer

Consumer — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 00:09:59 +0000

Speaking of oil, looks like some wascally wabbits are up to their old twicks in Venezuela. Pipeline sabotage using explosives, very terrorist-like. Doubtlessly US oil interests have nothing to do with Sunday’s attack.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/12/04/venezuela.pipeline.ap/index.html