Why in the world would anyone wonder about the results of a poll asking if Iraq's wanted to control their own destiny?

Why in the world would anyone wonder about the goals of Bu$h the inferior's program of democracy to control Iraq's destiny?

If the Iraq oil law is implemented it will be double plus good.

The sad thing are those Americans who think stealing the oil is a good idea. They're no better than junkies knocking over a 7-11 for their fix. And, like junkies whacked on drugs, our oil mad politicians were living in a fantasy world and coudn't get this invasion right.

If the Iraqis ever manage to repel the invaders, then they should not have to honour any such contract signed while the whole country is being held hostage. Such contracts are invalid.

The invasion of Iraq was originally labeled OIL (Operation Iraqi Liberation).....Maybe they should reuse it so that their objective is very clear....Not Iraqi liberation but Iraqi OIL liberation.

Let us prey.

And I thought Cheney secretly met with the oil mafia pre-illegal invasion to map out not how they planned to divvy up the spoils, but how to make Iraq the greenest, most environmentally symbiotic nation on Earth. Isn't that why the Oil Ministry was so fiercely protected as the bombs rained down? Hey, wait a second...

Frank1569

Yes, I recall reading about this proposed law at least three years ago, and then is when it hit me that THIS was the actual reason for the invasion and THIS was what Cheney had discussed with the oil giants during his secret energy meeting with them at the beginning of this monarchy. I believe he told them about the planned invasion of Iraq and asked for their support of the administration with the incalculable oil revenues as their payoff. Iraq has vast undeveloped oil fields.

At the time, there was some noise about Southern Iraqis fiercely determined to hold on to those oil fields though and not give up any part of their development or profits to anyone else. I've often wondered what happened to that determination. Maybe it's still there.

Blackwater... Gee what's liquid and black? Do we see a pattern here? Anyone?

Someone said that the oil neo cons in the White House were in a meeting prior to the invasion and they had a big map of Iraq spread out on a table. One observer said that it looked like one of those diagrams of the various parts of a steer, the flank, the rib, etc.

This was a good illustration of how they intended to carve Iraq up and sell it off to the oil companies. Greg Pallast has done some good investigative journalism on pre invasion planning. He claims that the original idea was to capture Iraqi oil and put pressure on OPEC to do what the oil companies wanted them to do, which means more access to OPEC's oil fields.

The site below describes just what the US intends for Iraq's oil. It isn't as direct as seizing the oil fields, but rather it's a series of "contracts" with oil giants who would "develop" the oil fields.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

Here's an excerpt:

A CONTRACTUAL RIP-OFF

The debate over oil "privatisation" in Iraq has often been misleading due to the technical nature of the term, which refers to legal ownership of oil reserves. This has allowed governments and companies to deny that "privatisation" is taking place. Meanwhile, important practical questions, of public versus private control over oil development and revenues, have not been addressed.

The development model being promoted in Iraq, and supported by key figures in the Oil Ministry, is based on contracts known as production sharing agreements (PSAs), which have existed in the oil industry since the late 1960s. Oil experts agree that their purpose is largely political: technically they keep legal ownership of oil reserves in state hands (3), while practically delivering oil companies the same results as the concession agreements they replaced.

Running to hundreds of pages of complex legal and financial language and generally subject to commercial confidentiality provisions, PSAs are effectively immune from public scrutiny and lock governments into economic terms that cannot be altered for decades.

In Iraq's case, these contracts could be signed while the government is new and weak, the security situation dire, and the country still under military occupation. As such the terms are likely to be highly unfavourable, but could persist for up to 40 years.

Furthermore, PSAs generally exempt foreign oil companies from any new laws that might affect their profits. And the contracts often stipulate that disputes are heard not in the country's own courts but in international investment tribunals, which make their decisions on commercial grounds and do not consider the national interest or other national laws. Iraq could be surrendering its democracy as soon as it achieves it.

POLICY DELIVERED FROM AMERICA TO IRAQ

Production sharing agreements have been heavily promoted by oil companies and by the US Administration.

The use of PSAs in Iraq was proposed by the Future of Iraq project, the US State Department's planning mechanism, prior to the 2003 invasion. These proposals were subsequently developed by the Coalition Provisional Authority, by the Iraq Interim Government and by the current Transitional Government. The Iraqi Constitution also opens the door to foreign companies, albeit in legally vague terms.

Of course, what ultimately happens will depend on the outcome of the elections, on the broader political and security situation and on negotiations with oil companies. However, the pressure for Iraq to adopt PSAs is substantial. The current government is fast-tracking the process and is already negotiating contracts with oil companies in parallel with the constitutional process, elections and passage of a Petroleum Law.

The Constitution also suggests a decentralisation of authority over oil contracts, from the national level to Iraq's regions. If implemented, the regions would have weaker bargaining power than a national government, leading to poorer terms for Iraq in any deal with oil companies.

A RADICAL DEPARTURE

In order to make their case, oil companies and their supporters argue that PSAs are standard practice in the oil industry and that Iraq has no other option to finance oil development. Neither of these assertions is true.

According to International Energy Agency figures, PSAs are only used in respect of about 12% of world oil reserves, in countries where oilfields are small (and often offshore), production costs are high, and exploration prospects are uncertain. None of these conditions applies to Iraq.

None of the top oil producers in the Middle East uses PSAs. Some governments that have signed them regret doing so. In Russia, where political upheaval was followed by rapid opening up to the private sector in the 1990s, PSAs have cost the state billions of dollars, making it unlikely that any more will be signed. The parallel with Iraq's current transition is obvious.

The advocates of PSAs also claim that obtaining investment from foreign companies through these types of contracts would save the government up to $2.5 billion a year, freeing up funds for other public spending. Although this is true, the investment by oil companies now would be massively offset by the loss of state revenues later.

Our calculations show that were the Iraqi government to use PSAs, its cost of capital would be between 75% and 119%. At this cost, the advantages referred to are simply not worth it.

Iraq has a range of less damaging and expensive options for generating investment in its oil sector. These include: financing oil development through government budgetary expenditure (as is currently the case), using future oil flows as collateral to borrow money, or using international oil companies through shorter-term, less restrictive and less lucrative contracts than PSAs (4).

IN WHOSE INTERESTS?

PSAs represent a radical redesign of Iraq's oil industry, wrenching it from public into private hands. The strategic drivers for this are the US/UK push for "energy security" in a constrained market and the multinational oil companies' need to "book" new reserves to secure future growth.

Despite their disadvantages to the Iraqi economy and democracy, they are being introduced in Iraq without public debate.

It is up to the Iraqi people to decide the terms for the development of their oil resources. We hope that this report will help explain the likely consequences of decisions being made in secret on their behalf.

I'm sure once the Oil law is passed by the Iraq's government the water and lights will work in Bagdad again. But the damn in Mosal may not. 1.7 million people live under the Dams shadow.

It is much better for the Iraqis to formulate an alternative. Assuming that the fix is not in worldwide, then they could get financing to revive the oil fields and make them productive.

There are two principles at play. Create a sense of urgency (benchmarks) and create a sense of no alternatives.

This is why I said that the Iraqi legislature took a vacation in August.
Other than it being blazing hot there, they did not want to be forced into giving away everything.

Iraqi American "Palm-ocracy" Gone Asunder
The goal in Iraq for continuing American influence was to establish an old fashioned American bribery based client state, in my terms what would have been a Chalabi led "Palm-ocracy".
Then and now, the desire for and possibility of an Iraq' democracy are oxymoronic concepts.

Iraq (as with its neighbors) was ruled by brutality and armed suppression before America began its occupation.
Iraq (as with its neighbors) will be ruled by brutality and armed suppression after the U.S. leaves.
No amount of troops or time frame under a half century will alter this formula.
America seeks to align itself with this, to-be-decided, new ruling force.
That this new ruling force will be a democracy is oxymoronic.
That the new ruling force will be a democracy aligned with the interests of the U.S. is even yet more naively ridiculous.
What the Cheney/neocon aggressors wanted and could have best hoped for, no matter how incompetent in assessing the tribal/religious nature of Iraq they were, would be to establish a "palmocracy."
When Arafat died I opined that hopefully, eventually, a Sunni palmocrat of Arafat's scheming mold would appear who would collect the graft and grease together a new working government.
The societal mixture of tribes, religions, criminal elements, power seekers, moneyed neighbors with agendas and foreign born terrorists simply overwhelm this possibility.
Chalabi as a symbol of what a palmocracy might have been was so enticing. Oh well!
Brutality and suppression will eventually create a new Iraq. The Iraqis want America out now. This desire can only increase.
It is entirely illogical that a ruling body can appear from the ashes of Iraq that will kiss the hand of its invader.
--PS Financial advisory: Buy stock in 'Crescent Sea Development Limited.' It's listed on the Iranian Stock Exchange and is reputedly a real favorite of the Mullahs.--
(cognitorex palmocracy)

I can't remember just when dear leader's speeches contained this talking point lecturing the anti-war/occupation community: "I'm troubled by the soft bigotry of some out there who don't believe the Iraqis are capable of governing of governing themselves." I think it was 2004 or 2005. I saw him repeat it several times at speeches shown by the MSM. Let's dig it up and play it for him until he lets the Iraqis govern themselves.

One of the quotes from Bush went something like "they want to destroy our way of life". This says a lot to me. Our way of life is big SUVs and plenty of affordable gasoline. In that sense, the statement makes some sense for those that want to see only the same ways and not consider any of the new ways.