Does the U.S. have the right to offer Iraq's oil to other countries?

[Zhade]

Specifically, does our government have the right to offer other countries portions of the Iraqi people's oil in exchange for assistance in stabilizing the country?

My answer should be an obvious NO. But what do you all think? Do we have the right to offer oil contracts to other countries to get help stabilizing the country?

[mike_c]

1. offering other countries Iraqi resources is imperialist arrogance...

...of the highest order.

[951]

2. out should be our :D

I voted no

[mike_c]

3. oh, OUR oil-- that makes all the difference....

:evilgrin:

[Zhade]

4. Oops! Thanks for that. I goofed.

Kinda does change the answer, eh? :P

[sweetheart]

5. I've decided to deny all nation states legitimacy of their borders

This is the earths crust for fucks sake, and there are 6 billion of
us who need to live and who need energy supplies.

It is not the oil of an artificial state, any more than it is the
oil of another artificial "USA" state... it is part of the earth's
crust, just like the polar ice caps, the fresh water, the air and
the biosystem that keeps us all alive and sustained by its
generosity.

Get thee army home and spend the money on solar energy, wind, and
geothermal heatpumps. I'm increasingly thinking a new form of
rulership, that your rights are determined by the square root of
the distance from where your're standing. Live is local. The
artificial systems of government should be replicating this reality.

[K-W]

7. Even better!

At the true base of things, it isnt Iraq's oil or the Iraqi's oil.

It is oil. The only oil humanity has, and just because some people happen to be born in the, for all intents and purposes, arbitrarily drawn boundry with that oil doesnt make it thier oil.

Do I have ownership of a volcano in Hawaii because I was born in colorado? Does someone born underneath that volcano own it either?

The resources on this planet should be used in the manner that to the best of our knowledge benefits everyone on this planet the best.

And that means saving oil like crazy until we have found a replacement in every vital application, from heating and transportation to fabricating organic chemicals.

[sweetheart]

8. How far "down" do a nation state's border's go?

If we project all borders all the way through the planet, there
could be argued, that the mineral rights extend the diameter of
the planet.

We are one race of homo sapiens. We are at risk, for the stupidest
amongst us, who are the most aggressive, like barking dogs, without
any civility. The rest of us realize that there is nowhere else,
and this planet is getting to be increasingly tooo small.

Are there any smart people out there on the planet's crust... hello?

Does anyone realize that the demise of one of us, is the demise of
us all? One people, One planet, One ecosystem, One supply of
fossil fuels.

The arbitrary borders of men have lost their legitimacy with the
chest beating habits of monkey ignorance... WE don't need jesus, just
some bloody common sense. !

I can't believe how incredibly stupid our race of monkeys has become,
and if they extinguish their own biosystem, then i can only see it
as darwinian fate.... too stupid to survive.

[RapidCreek]

17. My how conveeeeenient.

The thing is the resources on this planet are used almost exclusively to OUR benifit largely at the expense of everyone else.

RC

[K-W]

18. Conveinent? I don't follow.

The resources are used unjustly and stupidly, that's the point. They should be used in a manner consistant with the best interests of everyone in the world.

[K-W]

6. Your question is a bit misleading.

Iraq has oil wells that are flowing as we speak and they are being rebuilt as part of the rebuilding era. Now the question is how that oil goes. Right now, the setup is that with the permission of the Iraqi government, a US company would manage thier oil, the Iraqi government will get thier cut.

The only thing that could be offered to others is the opportunity to have thier companies take up part of that deal.

The US wouldnt be giving Iraq's oil to anyone. The US would be sharing the business of extracting Iraqi oil and paying the Iraqi government in the process.

So by any traditional standard Iraq owns the oil and would still own the oil. They would just be allowing it to be harvested in exchange for a fee or taxes or something. And if they do manage to have an election, they will have a democratically elected government doing it.

The real issue here is not who owns the oil, nation wise. The real issue is one that exists in many countries. That the government is selling away a nation's resources because it is dependent on a certain economic model largly pushed or forced on it by the United States among other nations that reap the profit.

The elites who occupy government roles are in on the cash flow, the stakes are so high democracy is almost always subverted at some level.

The oil truely belongs to the people, and they never get much of anything in return for its being taken.

That is where the wrong is here, there is nothing wrong with the US sharing access in exchange for help above and beyond the base problem with the entire system. So your poll isnt really an accurate representation of the issue.

[Disturbed]

10. Iraqi government?

The one the US appointed?

If there is an election does anyone really believe that an Iraq Govt. deriving out of that will be anything less that a US Puppet Govt.?

The Hand-Over That Wasn't: Illegal Orders give the US a Lock on Iraq's Economy
by Antonia Juhasz

Officially, the U.S. occupation of Iraq ended on June 28, 2004. But in reality, the United States is still in charge: Not only do 138,000 troops remain to control the streets, but the "100 Orders" of L. Paul Bremer III remain to control the economy.

These little noticed orders enacted by Bremer, the now-departed head of the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority, go to the heart of Bush administration plans in Iraq. They lock in sweeping advantages to American firms, ensuring long-term U.S. economic advantage while guaranteeing few, if any, benefits to the Iraqi people.

The Bremer orders control every aspect of Iraqi life - from the use of car horns to the privatization of state-owned enterprises. Order No. 39 alone does no less than "transition from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat.

Although many thought that the "end" of the occupation would also mean the end of the orders, on his last day in Iraq Bremer simply transferred authority for the orders to Prime Minister Iyad Allawi - a 30-year exile with close ties to the CIA and British intelligence.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0805-07.htm

[K-W]

12. Legitimacy is a tricky thing.

I just think you could have phrased it to more accurately reflect ths situation, the act of doling out oil interests is not in itself the problem, the problem is that it is being done by an illigitame government.

[Zhade]

15. What would you define as legitimate?

If the Iraqi government is required to give away (at fire sale prices) its oil supply to ensure "security and stability", without the money going to benefit the Iraqi people, would the government truly be legitimate, or purchased?

[RapidCreek]

16. Why do they need a US middle man?

What...you figure them being stupid little brown people they can't handle it themselves? You know....like they did before we started blowing the shit out of them.

Oh wait....that's WHY we blew the shit out of them....so we could inject US middlemen into a here to fore state run business....you know....to help them out.

Jeesus.

RC

[K-W]

19. You seem to be misreading my posts dramatically.

Im sorry you are mistaken, but I am not advocating US control over Iraq.

Perhaps you should read my post rather than jumping all over me. Just because what is going on is wrong does not mean that this is a valid poll. The poll doesnt provide an accurate picture of the situation, that is all. It is a push poll, it spins the issue while asking it.

I think we all agree that the situation with Iraq's oil is horribly unjust, I am just pointing out that the problem is not letting other countries in on the deal in exchange for help, it is the fashion in which we are setting up the Iraqi government and economy so they will be a client state.

[RapidCreek]

20. ah ok....you see the thing is....we shouldn't be setting up the Iraqi

government or economy....It is not ours to set up. Any more than ours is theirs to set up.

I don't believe that resources which lie under the ground in Iraq are the worlds to use. They are the Iraqi's to use. If they decide they never want to drill another well or pump or sell another drop of oil...that is their decision to make. Not ours and not the rest of the worlds.

RC

[K-W]

21. It isnt Iraqi oil either.

That is silly, just because of an arbitrary political boundry?

The world's resources should be used in the best interests of ALL the worlds people, not Iraq only, not the US only. The issue isnt who owns the oil. Nobody owns the oil. It is a matter of what way of using the oil is in the best interests of humanity.

And I certainly dont think the US is the one who gets to decide that, and it isnt an excuse for the US to get involved. But the real problem with oil is that we need to conserve it, not who gets to piss it away.

[stavka]

9. Didn't some other country try to do this?

You should pay for your own occupation and security (from the French and others) was pretty much what started a war....

[Placebo]

11. The United States MUST Hold The Oil In TRUST...

until Iraq can get back on its feet.

[camero]

13. There must be 3 freepers here.....

who say to the victor go the spoils. No, it's Iraq's oil, not ours.

Of course we know Bush and cronies will sell it to Shell, ConocoPhillips, BP and Exxonmobil.

[Cats Against Frist]

14. Fuck -- it's not just the oil

Seems they want to sell the whole damn country off, piece by piece.

I just read this article the other day. I'm sure it's been posted here, before -- but it was a real eye opener.

Seeing the sign, I couldn’t help but think about something Senator John McCain had said back in October. Iraq, he said, is “a huge pot of honey that’s attracting a lot of flies.” The flies McCain was referring to were the Halliburtons and Bechtels, as well as the venture capitalists who flocked to Iraq in the path cleared by Bradley Fighting Vehicles and laser-guided bombs. The honey that drew them was not just no-bid contracts and Iraq’s famed oil wealth but the myriad investment opportunities offered by a country that had just been cracked wide open after decades of being sealed off, first by the nationalist economic policies of Saddam Hussein, then by asphyxiating United Nations sanctions.



http://harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html