My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

August 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

« For some, every day is Memorial Day | Main | Bob Kerrey: Don’t appease al Qaida »

May 25, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cd3769e200d83548370b53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I think I found the 18 benchmarks for Iraq:

Comments

Cd

I too, looked and looked for these benchmarks. Thanks for posting them. One would think the mainstream press would publish them, or at least feature some of the main ones like passage of the Hydrocarbon law, which has been described as calling for: "privatization of Iraq's oil sector... [which] would give foreign multinationals a much higher rate of return than they enjoy in other major oil producing countries and would lock in their control ..... [from http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/]
and as "a giveaway of the Iraqi oil reserves to foreign oil companies" [from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/10/04044/8943].

I'm a little late to the debate, but found those articles illuminating to what is actually reported in the mainstream US press.

Frank Warner

I have the feeling certain parties are trying too hard to describe Iraq's oil law in a way that fits their "Blood for Oil" fiction.

Others oppose any free market development of Iraq's oil, which would happen by competitive bidding. These objectors argue that all Iraqi oil must be owned, explored for, drilled for, pumped and marketed only by Iraq's national government, as if government is best at these tasks.

For the first time in their history, the Iraqi people own Iraq's oil. How they want to divide it up is up to them, as they and their democratically officials freely decide. I have the feeling they'll come up with partial nationalization, partial privatization. The main thing is that all Iraqis should share in the profits.

Cd, that Alternet story you cite also distorted what the Iraq parliament wanted as far as a U.S. withdrawal timetable. What it failed to mention is that some parliamentarians demanded conditions for a U.S. withdrawal, and, most importantly of all, the legislation they claim to have supported had no withdrawal date.

GDAEman

Cd, agree: "How they want to divide it [the oil] up is up to them."

That's why many people are trying to expose the fact that the "Iraq" oil law was written, in great part, by Americans (James Baker consultants), and most people in Iraq don't even know what the law says.

On the "blood for oil" fiction... what part do you see as "fiction", the oil or the blood?

George

The oil was flowing all the way up to the resumption of the war in 2003. In fact, it was flowing very well thanks to the French and the Oil for Food scandal. So how could there possibly by any fact to the "blood for oil" meme? The U.S. didn't need to depose Saddam Hussein for the oil.

Frank Warner

For the first time ever, Iraqi oil is for a free Iraq, not for a fascist dictator. Its profits will be divided under democratically enacted laws. The Iraq oil law appears on track to awarding its first oil development contract to China.

The second contract probably will go to India.

And to think, some people wanted Saddam Hussein and sons to have that oil to promote fascism and genocide forever. Those people will have to live with their shame.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment