[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Zeitgeist]Allan,

I think captcha makes a good point, in that it’s more realistic to believe that Iraq was about oil, because the other alternatives seem somewhat unbelievable, but I always fall back on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in that instance: “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.[/quote]

I found a citation that in 2001, the Cheney energy task force was aimed at
rewriting the iraqi oil laws. Now just because the Bush people turned out
to be so incompetent that they could invade a country intending to
steal their oil and then prove incapable of even doing that, well, what
can I say.

Also, while Halliburton is an oil services company, not a production
cmpany, they were in charge of all the pipelines, the production and
the deliveries to Jordan and turkey. None of halliurton’s work was audited,
measured, tracked. The system in iraq is totally corrupt, and Halliburton
moved to dubai to avoid any ability of US Courts or the SEC to
look at their books.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
That would explain all those american multi-nationals in Iraq
signing oil contracts.[/quote]

Pat: Read this: http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2009/08/24/Iraq-prepares-for-next-oil-contracts/UPI-28761251129466/

It’s a recent article regarding the letting of Iraqi oil contracts and it cites only BP (British Petroleum, which is, uh, British) and China National Petroleum (which is Chinese) as moving forward on this round of contracts.

Yes, I realize this is an on-going process, with multiple rounds of contracts, but it gives lie to your “American multi-nationals signing oil contracts” statement.

How’s about you throw some facts out there, instead of relying on tired old canards, huh? You have Dutch (Royal Dutch Shell), French (Total (fmrly Elf/Aquitaine)), Italian (Eni), Chinese, British and Russian oil companies all competing with ExxonMobil, Chevron, et al, for these oil contracts. NPR article on same: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106077283%5B/quote%5D

Halliburton. Who was managing the oil fields from 2003 to 2008.

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/03/juhasz-whose-oil-is-it-anyway.html

In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
That would explain all those american multi-nationals in Iraq
signing oil contracts.[/quote]

Pat: Read this: http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2009/08/24/Iraq-prepares-for-next-oil-contracts/UPI-28761251129466/

It’s a recent article regarding the letting of Iraqi oil contracts and it cites only BP (British Petroleum, which is, uh, British) and China National Petroleum (which is Chinese) as moving forward on this round of contracts.

Yes, I realize this is an on-going process, with multiple rounds of contracts, but it gives lie to your “American multi-nationals signing oil contracts” statement.

How’s about you throw some facts out there, instead of relying on tired old canards, huh? You have Dutch (Royal Dutch Shell), French (Total (fmrly Elf/Aquitaine)), Italian (Eni), Chinese, British and Russian oil companies all competing with ExxonMobil, Chevron, et al, for these oil contracts. NPR article on same: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106077283%5B/quote%5D

Halliburton. Who was managing the oil fields from 2003 to 2008.

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/03/juhasz-whose-oil-is-it-anyway.html

In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
That would explain all those american multi-nationals in Iraq
signing oil contracts.[/quote]

Pat: Read this: http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2009/08/24/Iraq-prepares-for-next-oil-contracts/UPI-28761251129466/

It’s a recent article regarding the letting of Iraqi oil contracts and it cites only BP (British Petroleum, which is, uh, British) and China National Petroleum (which is Chinese) as moving forward on this round of contracts.

Yes, I realize this is an on-going process, with multiple rounds of contracts, but it gives lie to your “American multi-nationals signing oil contracts” statement.

How’s about you throw some facts out there, instead of relying on tired old canards, huh? You have Dutch (Royal Dutch Shell), French (Total (fmrly Elf/Aquitaine)), Italian (Eni), Chinese, British and Russian oil companies all competing with ExxonMobil, Chevron, et al, for these oil contracts. NPR article on same: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106077283%5B/quote%5D

Halliburton. Who was managing the oil fields from 2003 to 2008.

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/03/juhasz-whose-oil-is-it-anyway.html

In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
That would explain all those american multi-nationals in Iraq
signing oil contracts.[/quote]

Pat: Read this: http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2009/08/24/Iraq-prepares-for-next-oil-contracts/UPI-28761251129466/

It’s a recent article regarding the letting of Iraqi oil contracts and it cites only BP (British Petroleum, which is, uh, British) and China National Petroleum (which is Chinese) as moving forward on this round of contracts.

Yes, I realize this is an on-going process, with multiple rounds of contracts, but it gives lie to your “American multi-nationals signing oil contracts” statement.

How’s about you throw some facts out there, instead of relying on tired old canards, huh? You have Dutch (Royal Dutch Shell), French (Total (fmrly Elf/Aquitaine)), Italian (Eni), Chinese, British and Russian oil companies all competing with ExxonMobil, Chevron, et al, for these oil contracts. NPR article on same: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106077283%5B/quote%5D

Halliburton. Who was managing the oil fields from 2003 to 2008.

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/03/juhasz-whose-oil-is-it-anyway.html

In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.

[patb]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=patb]
That would explain all those american multi-nationals in Iraq
signing oil contracts.[/quote]

Pat: Read this: http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2009/08/24/Iraq-prepares-for-next-oil-contracts/UPI-28761251129466/

It’s a recent article regarding the letting of Iraqi oil contracts and it cites only BP (British Petroleum, which is, uh, British) and China National Petroleum (which is Chinese) as moving forward on this round of contracts.

Yes, I realize this is an on-going process, with multiple rounds of contracts, but it gives lie to your “American multi-nationals signing oil contracts” statement.

How’s about you throw some facts out there, instead of relying on tired old canards, huh? You have Dutch (Royal Dutch Shell), French (Total (fmrly Elf/Aquitaine)), Italian (Eni), Chinese, British and Russian oil companies all competing with ExxonMobil, Chevron, et al, for these oil contracts. NPR article on same: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106077283%5B/quote%5D

Halliburton. Who was managing the oil fields from 2003 to 2008.

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2007/03/juhasz-whose-oil-is-it-anyway.html

In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.

[patb]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=patb]I’d be curious to know how many people wanting to picket BP
were quite happy to have Bush invade Iraq to steal their oil?[/quote]

So we’re stealing Iraqi oil? Really?

Can patb or anyone else enlighten me as to how much we’ve stolen?

It’s my understanding that while we’ve spent about $0.7T to change the regime in Iraq, we have not taken ANY of their oil, tempting and easy as that might have been.

Am I wrong?[/quote]

That would explain all those american multi-nationals in Iraq
signing oil contracts.

[patb]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=patb]I’d be curious to know how many people wanting to picket BP
were quite happy to have Bush invade Iraq to steal their oil?[/quote]

So we’re stealing Iraqi oil? Really?

Can patb or anyone else enlighten me as to how much we’ve stolen?

It’s my understanding that while we’ve spent about $0.7T to change the regime in Iraq, we have not taken ANY of their oil, tempting and easy as that might have been.

Am I wrong?[/quote]

That would explain all those american multi-nationals in Iraq
signing oil contracts.

[patb]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=patb]I’d be curious to know how many people wanting to picket BP
were quite happy to have Bush invade Iraq to steal their oil?[/quote]

So we’re stealing Iraqi oil? Really?

Can patb or anyone else enlighten me as to how much we’ve stolen?

It’s my understanding that while we’ve spent about $0.7T to change the regime in Iraq, we have not taken ANY of their oil, tempting and easy as that might have been.

Am I wrong?[/quote]

That would explain all those american multi-nationals in Iraq
signing oil contracts.

[patb]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=patb]I’d be curious to know how many people wanting to picket BP
were quite happy to have Bush invade Iraq to steal their oil?[/quote]

So we’re stealing Iraqi oil? Really?

Can patb or anyone else enlighten me as to how much we’ve stolen?

It’s my understanding that while we’ve spent about $0.7T to change the regime in Iraq, we have not taken ANY of their oil, tempting and easy as that might have been.

Am I wrong?[/quote]

That would explain all those american multi-nationals in Iraq
signing oil contracts.

[patb]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=patb]I’d be curious to know how many people wanting to picket BP
were quite happy to have Bush invade Iraq to steal their oil?[/quote]

So we’re stealing Iraqi oil? Really?

Can patb or anyone else enlighten me as to how much we’ve stolen?

It’s my understanding that while we’ve spent about $0.7T to change the regime in Iraq, we have not taken ANY of their oil, tempting and easy as that might have been.

Am I wrong?[/quote]

That would explain all those american multi-nationals in Iraq
signing oil contracts.

[patb]

[quote=jonnycsd]The OT founda great video. I recently saw this one and think it does an even better job of laying out the pitfalls of a nationalized health system . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdx_2cuPgQQ%5B/quote%5D

Stossel has been on the GOP payroll for years.

30% of all insurance premiums go to overhead, medicare spends 2%.

[patb]

[quote=jonnycsd]The OT founda great video. I recently saw this one and think it does an even better job of laying out the pitfalls of a nationalized health system . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdx_2cuPgQQ%5B/quote%5D

Stossel has been on the GOP payroll for years.

30% of all insurance premiums go to overhead, medicare spends 2%.

[patb]

[quote=jonnycsd]The OT founda great video. I recently saw this one and think it does an even better job of laying out the pitfalls of a nationalized health system . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdx_2cuPgQQ%5B/quote%5D

Stossel has been on the GOP payroll for years.

30% of all insurance premiums go to overhead, medicare spends 2%.

[patb]

[quote=jonnycsd]The OT founda great video. I recently saw this one and think it does an even better job of laying out the pitfalls of a nationalized health system . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdx_2cuPgQQ%5B/quote%5D

Stossel has been on the GOP payroll for years.

30% of all insurance premiums go to overhead, medicare spends 2%.

[Author]

Posts