Iraqis oppose oil privitization? Why those selfish BASTARDS! After all weve done for them!!!!!!!

The word is, robery I'll brake into your house I'll take your TV and you can watch it once a week. Thats what the U.S. calls Democrecy.So there.

Privatization has always been the goal of the war, I believe. Foreign companies like Halliburton move in with no-bid contracts, make billions, reap all the benefits of Iraqi oil, and super-exploit the Iraqi people.

The Iraq war is meant to make Iraq safe for Wal Mart, McDonalds and Halliburton. All about money, money, money. All of us in the streets chanting "No blood for oil" were right all along. Iraq has the second-largest oil reserves in the world. Their oil had once been dominated by British companies up until Saddam Hussein - the U.S. wants to repeat history, now that it finally has a friendly client regime in Iraq.

I've done a search in the NYT - our national newspaper of record - using a range of terms related to the poll in this story and the euro/dollar aspect that may be driving all this.

"It's not the oil stupid, it's the currency used to buy it," that we're fighting for.

Anyway, the NYT is not reporting, that I could find on the Policies Studies Poll or the currency issues raised so convincingly by commenters.

How do we get this story to the MSM?

OIL

Operation Iraqi Liberation

In other words; Corporate America to Liberate Iraq of its Oil.

Americans need to unite against this evil that has taken hold of our government and take back what rightfully belongs to us. Voting Democrat or Republican is NOT the solution!

anney,

I thoroughly enjoyed your discussion with aymon, but you should not be puzzled. If assumptions about the utilitarian nature of corporate-controlled policy decisions were valid, then what transpired would be confusing. However, there is nothing utilitarian about our current political system and the corporations that control it. We need to think more in terms of inertia (difficulty in changing direction). The oil and arms companies acquired a great deal of power over time and they are determined to keep it and to continue using it to enrich themselves by influencing government decisions. And that is what they have done here.

The market is not utilitarian, despite all the propaganda to the contrary, and neither are the policies of governments controlled by the biggest players in the market.

peacemaker

Congress could just defund the mercenaries rather than the troops, and the war would end immediately without anybody having to answer political questions about not supporting the troops.

What hasn't this moron privatized????? This is one of the points of Big money Republican's that made me quit voting for them in the mid 80's. All that word privatization means the public gets screwed royally by big Republican Government and Big Business interests. Ronald Reagan called it 'deregulation' but it meant the same thing! The public gets 'Ripped off on a grand scale'! Just look at the Iraq war. We now have more mercenary's on the ground than soldiers. These thugs are costing the American taxpayer through the nose. When the American public gets tired of being screwed by this bunch of organized crime figures, they might put someone in office who works for the American people's interest not big business!

No wonder the US government wants legislation passed privitizing Iraq's oil. They don't understand that THEY, (the US gov't,) are supposed to represent the will of the PEOPLE that elected them, not the CORPORATIONS that pay them. Stupid Iraqi's have NO idea what true demockery really means.

An easy mistake to make. I'm sure a few more bombs should be able to correct whatever difficulties lie ahead.

Peace to you and yours.

aymon

I am convinced that Bush will continue in Iraq by any means until those contracts are wrapped up tightly -- he's made passage of this Iraqi law one of the "benchmarks" that must be met by the Iraqi government before the US will withdraw from Iraq. And what new American president of either party will want to throw a wrench into the oil agenda?

Perhaps Bush has wedged himself and Maliki between a rock and a hard place by setting up a scenario where the West profits hugely from Iraqi oil, at the expense of the Iraqi government and people. Maliki has Iraqi political pressures to consider if he wants to keep Iraq afloat, as do the other members of that governing body. Their lives may ultimately be at risk from their own people, depending on whether they fold under American pressures and interests.

I think you're correct, that we don't know how this will play out now that US military supremacy in Iraq is a joke. As you're probably aware, there are political forces in the US that are also demanding that the Bush administration remove those permanent military bases in Iraq AND that enormous American embassy that's being built, supposed to be the largest one in the world. Bush is poised on the brink of utter disaster in several large arenas that most Americans are only peripherally aware of. It's no wonder to me that he's desperately determined to continue in Iraq no matter what the cost until he achieves his and Cheney's objectives.

I think the money standard is also a factor, but it's a factor that can be dealt with AFTER the multinational oil companies are guaranteed a way to siphon off the majority of Iraq's oil profits -- that money would do a lot to alleviate an American economic disaster in the short run.

What is absolutely the most puzzling thing to me at this time in history is WHY these billions of American war-dollars were not funnelled into researching and developing alternate energy sources instead of trying to gain control of Iraq's oil profits. I've no doubt that thousands of human beings have found ways to utilize free energy. We don't need just one source of energy, such as oil. There are dozens that I've read about, admittedly only in their baby-steps, but with great potential, especially if we utilize several of them simultaneously. As time goes on, they'll be refined and upgraded, much as computer technology has been.

Well, it will be interesting to see how things play out politically, but I fear the cost in human life will keep rising.

"According to Oil Change International, the oil law . . .would allow multinational oil companies to sign exclusive 30-year contracts with Iraq's current government."

A couple of practical questions here:
1) What high-payed CEO of a multinational oil company would be willing to even sign a 30 year contract with the "current government"?
2) What court in the world would enforce the terms of these contracts?

The Chinese control the value of the Dollar at this point because they hold so many. When they sell them off for Euros, we're in the decaying dustbin of history, oil or no oil.

jspkim August 9th, 2007 12:24 am

"And I can't think of any compelling reasons why Putin would want to switch to Euro either."

How's this for a compelling reason? The value of the dollar as dropped by 40% against the Euro since Bush took office. If you were holding a lot of dollars, wouldn't you rather move them into Euros?

And I can't think of any compelling reasons why Putin would want to switch to Euro either.

IMO, altho devaluation of the US dollar will continue at a faster rate,an abrupt switch to Euro is a unlikely scenario. It will be more of a slow yet continuous process.

The following countries are the largest US dollar reserves outside the US.

#1 China
#2 Japan
# Russia
#4 S. Korea
# 5 Taiwan (Taiwan is not a UN recognized country tho)

None of these countries wants to be tied up to Euro at this point ( why serve another master?) . And they do not want a sudden death of the US economy either.

There have been discussions among these Asian counties ( excluding Russia) to come up with a common currency. And Even without Russia, this would be the biggest economic block, exceeding EU or the US.

As candidate John McCain said when Iraqis and their Parliament voted us out of their country, "these are not real Iraqis".

I apologize for repeating a post.

It's not just about oil. It's about the dollar.
Consider this-
2000 Iraq started accepting euros as payment and was invaded in 2003. Now they're back to the dollar.
2002 Venezuela, which barters much of its oil, and has toyed with accepting euros, had a military coup which was backed by the US.
2006 Iran started demanding payment in euros and bombers are standing by!

Further, our 2 big backers in invading Iraq were the UK (doesn't use the euro) and Australia, whose dollar is closely linked to the US dollar.

If everyone stops using dollars and moves to euros the dollar will topple over like a 1-legged acrobat (more apologies-too much Raymond Chandler-I'm a metaphor addict).

China just warned us that if we continue to demand that they revalue the yuan that they will bring the dollar down (they own a LOT of them).
By my calculations, that means a big arms deal for Taiwan is a'coming.

Drop bush, cheney, condi, rove and the rest of the nazi crowd in the middle of Bagdad, not the green zone and see how long they last!

Who cares what the Iraqis think? No oil deal - no drinking water or electricity. That's the level the human filth in the White House have sunk to.

When you attempt to take something that doesn't belong to you its called "stealing" It's wrong. One of the Ten Commandments is "Those Shall Not Steal" Bush's good friends in Saudi Arabia understand that; they cut people's hands off for doing it. The oil barons are STEALING the oil of Iraq in our name. We are not going to benefit from this theft. This mentally challenged president continues to destroy our country and the so called opposition party keeps making it easier for him to do so. We as a nation are dangerously in debt to China and Saudi Arabia while our infrastructure and our armed forces are in an advancing state of deteriorzation. The only solution to this problem is IMPEACHMENT.

aymon

The deal is not to steal the oil.

The deal is that the oil will stay in Iraqi hands but the development contracts for the oil fields must be given to the oil giants.

Take a look at this excerpt from http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

COSTING IRAQ BILLIONS

Economic projections published here for the first time show that the model of oil development that is being proposed will cost Iraq hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue, while providing foreign companies with enormous profits.

Our key findings are:

# At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts (2), from only the first 12 oilfields to be developed. These estimates, based on conservative assumptions, represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi government budget.

# Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment.

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.

In retrospective, what we have been doing for few decades and in the international arena (our tax dollars real usage pretty much obfuscated or extremely poorly reported) it's nothing more than what previous powers have been doing since ever, I guess - we learned little from their failures (see Greek, Roman, British Empires..)

What differentiate our efforts in that arena, is that we have been profoundly misled on the real nature, cause and benefits of being so aggressive in that policy; we fully disregarded what previous powers did - and whoever was our face abroad, other than being one of those fundamentals tabu untouchable, did not help us, as society, to fully understand and rightfully approve or not, or be a consensual partner in such ventures - going with the flow is not a democratic and grown-up process, quite the contrary

In the process we have been forced to neglect completely the reinforcement of our identity as nation, to better value all the good things existing HERE, all the good things that must be maintained and improved HERE and the soundness of the financial structure which is another of those major tabu to leave at where they are, wrongly

In summing all up, thanks to a very questionable role in the world, we are not so favourably seen as of now, our financial condition and currency is on a precarious state of health, and we must hear constantly this day to day blatering on chain of events which, other than obfuscating what is really happening around the world, just pull us down a path of negativity that is more and more visible in the reaction and behaviour of a more and more absent general population - absent is a bad condition and not representative of a young country in a progressing phase

With over 800,000 Iraqis of all ages killed and a more than a million maimed since the invasion, only the weakest Iraqis would befriend the invading/occupying forces.

Saddam, the former CIA operative noticed that the USA is run by a bunch of dirty rats. He refused to let Iraq become another American colony. The Iraqi people apparently don't want that either.

Please call you state senators/congress once a week telling them to get our soldiers the hell out of Iraq, and that we need to repay the Iraqi people a trillion or more dollars for all the undeserved misery & damage that the Bush regime has inflicted upon them.

If we want peace, we must work for justice!

Who cares what a majority of Iraqi's want? We gave them democracy, damn it, why can' t they just shut up and accept it? That's Haliburton's oil under their country anyway.

Who cares what a majority of Iraqi's want? We gave them democracy, damn it, why can' t they just shut up and accept it?

Gandhi (3:29),
I wasn't aware of the Green party receiving money from Blackwater. If the Greens accepted such an offer, then there's a huge problem. Thanks for the link; I'll check it out.

"The president understands how a war can wear on a nation," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "Whatever the bleakness is, whatever the facts are on the ground, you figure out how to win. You can't do that by reading polls."

unless of course you're polling oil execs behind closed doors to create an energy policy.

Aymon, I love your deal except I think you need to consider the possibility that the goal of the occupation from the US point of view is to make sure the Iraqi oil stays in the ground and keep the party of artificial scarcity going. If you are interested to explore this theory, check out the work of investigative journalist Greg Palast in his recent book "Armed Madhouse....."

If Palast is right, US-Euro as you call it is doing great and everything is proceeding as planned.

I suspect those people are enough like me to tend to object when their homes are looted, their cities bombed, and their wealth stolen.

They may even consider fighting back, but that would make them terrorists.

It's amazing the real reason for the war, oil, is ignored and poo-poohed by the MSM and the Democratic frontrunners. It seems it is the only thing General Betrayus has been honest about. The Iraqi Parliament is currently on strike (oops, I mean vacation) so it doesn't have to deal with what the lying U.S. politicians of both parties call the oil reform bill -- which simply gives away almost 90% of Iraqi reserves to non-Iraqi oil companies.

Perhaps we should give some thought to nationalizing whatever oil we have left in this country. The perverted people who now control it are the same ones promoting the genocide in Iraq.

Let's see, we destroy their country and then tell them that if they want us to rebuild their country that we destroyed, we will do so with non Iraqi labor and no bid contracts, but first you have to give up all your oil..that sounds about right.

Gee..poor Bush is spending $12 billion per month of America's money (that could be used for health care, transportation, clean the environment, repair the National Park System, provide food for poor children, etc.) and the ungrateful Iraq people won't give him and his brown shirted henchmen the oil the Iraq people own??? Well, by darn, George and his Nazi like buddies will steal it anyway.

Did you hear that for the US to reconstruct Iraq (of course that means no bid contracts for their friends), the Iraq people must give up their oil? Interesting tat major news sources don't report that.

When will we Americans overthrow this fascist government controlled not only by the immoral, unethical and criminal Bush administration, but also by the lapdog Democratic Congress?

did you really need a poll to figure that out?

let's imagine the reverse:

Poll: US Citizens oppose privatization of it's natural resources by Iraqi Occupation Government.

You know how people like us "political analysts" always want to get to the "bottom line" on issues?

Well, in my opinion, here is the "bottom line" we all need to get to, and quickly. It has to do with National Election Reform and the People counting ALL the PAPER ballots in 2008. We don't need any new "legislation". It is our Constitutional Right to count the ballots and to oversee the elections. The computerized voting needs to be deep-sixed...immediately.

http://kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=13805

gandhi--

You're right, the Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans, but don't be so surprised! This has been obvious from day one. Historically speaking, the Democrats are a terrible party (started the Civil War, dragged us into WWI, and now have passed the wiretapping bill). Also, there are PLENTY of third parties that represent us! Do some research online and you'll find probably five or six third parties that represent your views.

But yes, 100%, absolutely, our representatives should REPRESENT US. This concept seems foreign to politicians. EVERY elected official should have a severe salary cut, and it should be made a felony to accept even $1 from a lobbyist.

I definitely like pavroviandog's idea about sending the firstborn of representatives to the front lines when they agree to go to send everybody but themselves and their rich buddies.

Rich man's war, poor man's fight. Dumbfuckistan indeed.

This administration won't listen to 71% of its own population. What in the hell makes anyone think they're going to listen to anything the Iraqi's want? After all, all we did was invade their country and make a big freakin' mess out of everything. Geesh. That's gratitude for you.

"...nearly two thirds of Iraqis oppose plans to open the country's oilfields to foreign companies."
I am shocked, shocked! Now, of course, oil as a both proximate and not so proximate reason for the whole adventure is beyond reasonable doubts; and yet bozos on both side of the isle keep talking about inadequacy of PM Maliki, errors of Paul Bremer, insufficient training of Iraqi troops and the rest of total nonsense.

The era of colonial marauders is OVER!!!

Marxymark:

I am curious to know your response to the comment of Jeremy Scahill in his interview with democracynow: "I've obtained the campaign finance records of the leading figures at Blackwater. They have just given beaucoup bucks to Republican campaigns, never a penny to a Democrat, but money to the Green Party to defeat Democrats."

"Blackwater USA Takes Congressional Hot-Seat as Landmark Hearing Probes Mercenary Firm's Role in Iraq" www.democracynow.org. Thursday, February 8th, 2007

Ghandi, I agree with you. We do need a party that would REPRESENT the average, forgotten, non-millionaire American citizens. I also think that our "representatives" should follow the direct wishes of their constituencies: through referendums. Each congressman should vote on bills ONLY after he/she has gotten the DIRECTIVES of his constituency, and ONLY vote according to what the PEOPLE DECIDE!

Anyone on board with this? Any other suggestions? We need to stop the so-called REPRESENTATIVES from voting against the interests of the people they are ELECTED to represent.

I also think this should be a new law: when the Congress votes for war, the first born of each of these elected officials be IMMEDIATELY DRAFTED TO THE FRONTLINES. That might give them pause and make them realize the seriousness of something called "war."
The FDR's, the TR's, and other presidents of integrity understood that quite well.

If the Iraqis agree they are selling their birthright.

The percent of Iraqis supporting nationalized oil is actually higher than 66%. The Kurds suppress the real figure because they want local control, but effectively, local control is the same as nationalization in the context of imperial onslaught.

Capitalist imperialism faces growing resistance worldwide, in institutions and in individuals, and the resistance must be strengthened and sustained. The job will become easier as people realize the many great benefits of individual and local autonomy, independence from the beast capital.

Amen, Gandhi. The Green party is already somewhat established. When/if the Dems reject Kucinich, it will be time to campaign for the best independent or third-party candidate. And if Kucinich loses the nomination and offers support again to a corporate Dem, then that's the final straw.

Even though Bush & co have made Iraqi oil law as a "bench mark" (for democracy), the "shameless" democrats-controlled congress is supporting Bush in this exploitation. So democrats are no better than the Republicans when it comes to supporting the transnational corporations' greed and exploitation. Because they are what they are because of the blood-money of these corporate companies. Atleast one of the democrat presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, is connected to Wal-Mart. Her husband was the one who, after becoming the president of the US pushed NAFTA ignoring the plight of the working people.

I strongly believe that the US needs a third political party that represents common people and their welfare. Otherwise the US government (both Republican and Democrat) continues to represent the interests and the greed of the transnational companies and make the common people both in the US and around the world "scapegoats" to satisfy the "thirst" of these corporations.

So instead of continuing to "shout at the wall", why don't you act and save the lives of common hard working people, by mobilizing people for the birth of a new party, that represents common people.

They would have to be some very sick bastards to want to be like us.

There was a recent post here on Common Dreams about Petrodollars. My basic understanding is if we control extraction ops at the spigot, all transactions on production are in US dollars. And, according to poster before, the US economy relies crucially on the artificial stabilization of the US dollar that results from the mandatory use of USD on pertroleum transactions where Halliburton or its US analog controls ops -- regardless of who owns the oil or has the leases. This is necessary because the erosion of the manufacturing base that used to drive our economy has been extreme. Oil and defense spending are band-aid substitutes for the manufacturing base.

If all that about Petrodollars is true, all Americans are faced with two routes that make sense:

1. Support all efforts to maintain the current solution to the economy. This means continuing to seek control over all the oil assets we can ensnare -- Iran, Venezuela, etc. It also means hundreds of thousands more civilian deaths of innocents in foreign lands, soldiers dead, overtaxed military, and increased terror threat as blowback probability increases. Stay the course.

2. Challenge the Petrodollar/Defense spending basis for the economy. This would mean radical change and potential radical disruption for Americans in the short term. Maybe astronomical gas prices, collapse of the dollar, sacrifices. It also eliminates the negatives above -- soldier deaths gone, innocent foreign deaths gone, terrorism essentially eliminated as its basis is gone.

Iraqi polls don't matter exactly as US polls of the public don't matter. That's because the public is not being polled about the right subject, and it is assumed the public cannot handle the real choices.

Maybe the real poll in the US would read: "Would you be OK with making some serious sacrifices in your way of life in the near term to stop the cycle of violence overseas that results from our dependence on controlling oil?"

The real poll in Iraq might read "Are you willing to pay a significant price in the form of oil revenue for the sake of aligning yourself with the West, with stability and defense assured by the vast resources of the West?" The real alternative for Iraq might be endless civil war. Of course, that's what they have anyway, so it's no choice for them currently.

At any rate, the assumption is that the public must be excluded from the discussion on the level of analysis where the decisions are made. So, it then becomes easy to dismiss all polls of the public here as coming from a position of ignorance. Of course, it's an ignorance of design. But, we have to acknowledge that design dates back to the founding of the country, and is integral to the fabric of our society.

I like Gravel's idea to allow the public to enact legislation directly. I mean, it's going to be hard for politicians to argue against that idea and look good doing it. We need to do an end-around the federal government as currently formulated to accomplish anything.

But Bush said that this was the Iraqi people's oil. Could it be that he was mistaken? Was he lying, or did he just change his mind? Inquiring minds want to know.

"Iraqis Oppose Oil Privatization"

"like...duh!" as a 20something might say...

Bush and Cheney do not care about US opinion polls. Of course they do not care what Iraqis think and never did. Their rhetoric is only meant to fool the uninformed and unsophisticated in order to lower the resistance against their intended crimes, here, in Iraq, and everywhere else they stick their greedy paws.

"4 percent of Iraqis polled said they had been given "totally adequate" information for them to feel informed about the oil law."

Now if 100% of them had been given adequate information about the oil law, 100% of them would be against it.

No-brainer.

Since when did the wishes of a majority of Iraq-Namese matter?

The majority want us out as well but since when has it mattered what the Iraqis want? That would be too much like democracy.

The Iraqis would have to be fools to accept the demands of BushCo & Big Oil. Do we need any more proof that this whole Iraq fiasco was just about oil? I am ashamed of the US government for trying to so blatantly rip off Iraq with the proposed hydrocarbon law. I don't thimk the Iraqis are stupid enough to meet this 'benchmark'. Good for them!

Didn't we expect them to arrive at this decision after taking so long to implement benchamarks?