A key measure of the Iraqi government’s ability to govern — the passage of a national oil-sharing deal — appears to have collapsed, according to the New York Times. The failure on oil is key, because it is the economic basis of power sharing in Iraq.
As Times columnist Paul Krugman and others have noted, it’s telling that international oil companies, such as Hunt Oil Co. of Dallas, have recently inked their own deals with Kurdish officials, bypassing and undermining the national process.
Economic market forces, the ultimate “decider” for the Bush administration, already seem to have delivered a verdict on the Iraq government: no confidence.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/23
- American_Way on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
54 Comments
The deal couldn’t have collapsed because Bush was just singing the praises of the Iraqi government for passing an oil sharing deal hours after the collapse was reported. Bush wouldn’t lie to the people for political gain would he?
The oil sharing deal will not succeed because Bush and Cheney want total control of the oil. That was the reason for the invasion from Day One. Why else did Bush and Company plan for long-term occupation?
Democracy and freedom have nothing to do with the Iraq War – it is greed for total oil control and nothing else.
“Democracy and freedom have nothing to do with the Iraq War – it is greed for total oil control and nothing else“.
That may very well have played a part in the decision, but it was icing on the cake.Many factors went into the decision to sidetrack the war on terrorism by invading Iraq.The architects of the plan (Neo-Conservatives) were influenced by a Communist mindset, and a socialist view of the world. Seeing their brand of government superior to all other and as such thinking by forcing their brand of government on the world. They will be saving the world and making it a better place for all concerned.
Bush having a limited understanding of the world around him and a personal perceived grudge against Saddam was a willing figure head. Much like the industrialists of Germany in the 1930’s, saw a profit in that venture, war contractors and big oil supported it and capitalized on the invasion.
Everyone of these misguided fools saw a win in this adventure, but gave no thought to the damage to the United States and future generations.
WE are a peace-loving nation? When I look back at all the tinpot dictators we have installed in brokeback regimes around the world, all in the name of stopping communism, and how many of these same dictators slaughtered their own people, I have to wonder about this so-called peace loving tag.
Now the deciding factor is oil, and nothings changed. I seriously doubt we would even bother with a Saddaam so long as he only killed his own people, didn’t have designs to invade anybody, and sold us his oil at a reasonable rate.
The invasion was notable for its complete disregard of human nature. Attempting to spread the democratic ideal with “shock and awe” was arrogant and shortsighted. You have to consider the way in which our own revolutionaries came to the notion of a democratic society. Freedom comes from within.
Early on in a Vietnam novel that I’m reading, a character recalls a quote from Confucius: “I can’t beat a sculpture from a stone with a sledgehammer; I can’t free the soul of a man by violence.”
The world is a complex place and it’s possible to think of exceptions. Generally, though, JFK’s “American University Commencement Address,” should be the goal. It was delivered on June 10, 1963. (Those who would argue that Kennedy was an unrelenting hawk are encouraged to read David Talbot’s book, “Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years,” prior to making a final judgement.)
Maybe all this stalling and “surging” and stalling again was designed to buy time NOT for the political success everyone wanted, but instead, to give bush/cheney oil cronies TIME to ink their own deals.
Then the US could pull out and let the slaughter begin. But not before the oil is safely in american clutches.
Where is the energy policy we’ve been promised that will take us off foreign oil dependence?
we will be taken off oil dependence when the oil companies, and coal plants are good and ready. Which will be never.
We will be taken off oil dependance when gas reaches $5 per gallon and over…which will be sooner than we think.
Mary, I think it will be “and over” before oil dependence becomes a BIG issue; say, $10/gal and over.
Follow the oil . . . and follow the emigrants.
“While violence in some parts of Baghdad has declined to June 2006 levels, the number of deaths from political violence has increased in Iraq as a whole. Ethnic cleansing has proceeded apace, and the humanitarian catastrophe, already staggering, has worsened. Some 2.5 million Iraqis are now refugees in neighboring countries. Another 2 million are internally displaced. And despite Bush Administration claims to the contrary, most of Iraq’s cities and towns still lack regular electricity, sanitation and other basic services, and suffer from economic depression. Up to half of Iraqis are unemployed.”
Other than that, things are great and the surge is working.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070924/editors
The bloodbath that you Bush dead-enders worry about when we leave?
Yeah, it’s already happening while we’re there.
HUH?
So, you lefties and anti-war types are POSITIVE that the Iraq war was about oil and nothing else.
Therefore, “peace” must be about oil.
Collectively, you lefties simultaneously bitch about the high price of gasoline, yet you seem to forget the laws of supply and demand: Generating more supply would REDUCE prices.
You lefties hate corporations in general, and oil companies in particular, so everything they do is “evil” in your mind.
However, doesn’t this oil have to be sold to someone?
Doesn’t the fact that contracts are being signed for this oil prove that American companies, and others, are BUYING this oil and not stealing it?
Yes, there is much debate and bickering about the terms of any revenue sharing. This is democracy in action. Prior to some deal being cut, should we just let the oil stay in the ground?
Royalties and working interests are converted, quickly, to CASH. No matter who takes physical possession of the actual crude, a check can be cut for any “royalty interest” once the Iraq goverment gets its act together.—–
An oil shortage will kill people.
Ambulances won’t run.
Homes won’t be heated.
Food and medicine won’t be refriderated.
Food and medicine won’t be transported.
People will lose their jobs.
People will die.
Defending the free flow of oil at market prices is a JUST, REASONABLE and RATIONAL goal of U.S. Foreigh policy.
Defending the free flow of oil at market prices is a DUTY of every American President.
You will not find a Democrat candidate willing to say otherwise, in public!
Iraq’s oil revenue is no longer funding the corrupt, UN “Oil for Food” program.
Saddam is no longer financing terrorism.
Would not a truly “evil” oil barron try to REDUCE supply?
If Mid-East oil is cut off, then the major oil companies could sell oil from other parts of the world at HIGHER prices, right?
Many people have come out and said the invasion was about oil. One of those was the Prime Minister of Australia who is a huge supporter of the occupation. Also it’s no surprise that the Bush regime had plans on what to do with Iraq’s oil before the invasion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
Doug
Again, you contradict yourselves, as do most liberals.
You take Bush to task for not having any “plan” after the “regime change”.
Then, you bash Bush for having a plan.
YES, oil is important.
However, violating 18 UN Resolutions, shooting at our aircraft, financing terrorists and threatening the world were FAR more important than oil.
There are many countries that have more oil reserves than the United States.
We were already at war with Iraq, prior to the invasion. It made sense to end the war with Iraq by removing Saddam.
Again, oil is important but oil is not the primary goal now, nor was it the primary goal prior to removing Saddam.
If big oil and big business are the evil mongers of this world, then what does that make the consumers and employees who benefit from products and the income that these companies supply?
IMO, Iraq was not enough of a security concern in and of itself to warrant the Invasion back in 2003. Without oil, the case for WMD against Sadaam would never have been made.
However, for those of use who buy oil, having a steady supply of middle eastern oil means a few more years before ANWR is tapped. Environmentalists should be happy!
Econ101,
You are clueless.
A very good read on the issue.’Why Iraqis oppose U.S.-backed oil lawWorkers think foreign firms will take over’http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/19/IN69RI00G.DTL
Out-of-date, but contains good background innfo,
‘Bush’s Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq’s Oil’http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/43045
“Even as Iraq verges on splintering into a sectarian civil war, four big oil companies are on the verge of locking up its massive, profitable reserves, known to everyone in the petroleum industry as “the prize.” “
Cosmos
Oil has to be sold to someone, for it to be of any value.
So people are buying Iraq’s oil?
Big deal!
You only prove that nobody is stealing the oil that is obviously under contract!
Negotiations are what we are watching.
Democracy, and perhaps a little Mid-East corruption, are what we are watching.
Even so, firms are BUYING the oil, not stealing it.
Econ101,
The Iraqis DISAGREE with you — and it’s their oil.
Cosmos
You speak for ALL the people in Iraq?
Gosh, you should go there and straighten things out!
Seriously, is it your position that no United States firm should be allowed to purchase ANY oil from Iraq until the Iraqi people are singing “Kumbaya”????????
Wouldn’t matter if Iraq didn’t sell us a drop of oil, they would still sell on the world market, thus reducing demand on the oil currently being produced and driving prices down. It’s all about who should profit from their oil, them, or American oil companies.
This is democracy in action.
Saddam is no longer financing terrorism.Posted by: Econ101
We are in this mess because people like you will lie to support your side.
You’re unamerican.
You hate our military so much you want them to stay in Iraq until Bush is out of office and you can then blame Iraq on a demecrat?
You are a bad american.You are a rush limbaugh american.
Shame on you.
If Mid-East oil is cut off, then the major oil companies could sell oil from other parts of the world at HIGHER prices, right?
Posted by: Econ101
You’re an idiot.You flunked econ101, right?
It’s my understanding that the proposed oil law that may be DOA operates to privatize the oil reserves in Iraq, vis a vis nationalized (as it was under Saddam and is in the other producing nations in the region). The proposed law was drafted by the State Department, IIRC, in consultation with its experts, and presented to the Iraqi parliament for consideration. The actions of the Kurds in forging ahead with the deals with Hunt Oil flies in the face of the ideal of the central government having whatever control the proposed bill would grant. The Kurds have said the revenues would be distributed IAW the Iraqi constitution and consistent with Kurdish law on the matter (hat tip to Kansas or Max, I don’t recall for that information).
It would seem to me that the action of the Kurds deals a blow to any proposed privatization, as well as nationalization; it seems that the Kurds are determining the reserves located in their area as provincially owned, first and foremost.
And, Econ101, it seems that the position of the Department of State as reflected in the proposed legislation it provided to the Iraqis was, indeed, there should be a national agreement on oil before any new agreements with producers was reached, which seems to be rejected by the Kurds.
We were already at war with Iraq, prior to the invasion. It made sense to end the war with Iraq by removing Saddam.
WE WERE??
Again, oil is important but oil is not the primary goal now, nor was it the primary goal prior to removing Saddam.
Posted by: Econ101
FACE IT, YOU MAY BE TOO STUPID TO VOTE.
YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR 3800 DEAD AMERICAN KIDS.
WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME WE INVADED A COUNTRY WITHOUT OIL?
WHY WAS IT SO IMPORTANT TO REMOVE SADDAM?
“SADDAM IS NO LONGER FINANCING TERRORISM.”
SADDAM BARELY HAD ENOUGH RESOURCES TO KEEP IRAQ RUNNING LET ALONG FUND ALL THOSE CRIMINALS YOU AND CHENEY CLAIM.
Noon Meds — ah yes, a nice handful of Oxycontin. Just what I need to comprehend the Bush policies in Iraq.
They all make sense to me now …
Seriously, is it your position that no United States firm should be allowed to purchase ANY oil from Iraq until the Iraqi people are singing “Kumbaya”????????
Posted by: Econ101
kUMBAYA…ANOTHER REPUKE CATCH PHRASE TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT WHICH IS 1000′S OF DEAD AND MAIMED AMERICAN KIDS.
“Seriously, is it your position that no United States firm should be allowed to purchase ANY oil from Iraq until the Iraqi people are singing “Kumbaya”????????”
Posted by: Econ101
Poor Econ101 cannot understand the difference between “purchase”, and who controls, and profits.
The Iraq Oil Union said it would go on strike if the PSA law the U.S. wants is passed.
‘Why Iraqis oppose U.S.-backed oil lawWorkers think foreign firms will take over’http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/19/IN69RI00G.DTL
Oil companies have found a reason to raise the price of gas.
With oil production up in Iraq you actually think gas prices will go back down.
Oil at $81.00 a barrel?
If bush can’t do any better than this, it’s no wonder he went broke in the texas oil patch.
Like a local bond issue originated by contractors looking for more work, bush and his neo-CONS have started the p. r. push to blow up iran.
Does george really think the u.s. can drop a few bombs in iran and that will be the end of it?
Let’s work on turning anyone left in the mideast who can stand us into haters.
I think the concept of the u.s. bombing people into democracy has proved to not work all that well.
Bush is a dangerous idiot.
Hey lets blow up more countries, i’m outta here soon.george bush
Saddam lit the Kuwait oil fields on fire, remember?
And the United States put out the fires.
Saddam was a threat to “free flow of oil at market prices” — a policy of the United States Government, even you DEMOCRATS must admit that your leaders must support that policy!
Cartels and Monopolies RESTRICT supply — They do not actively seek to INCREASE supply.
Again, Iraq has to sell their oil to someone.
Why NOT the United States?
Yes, in a perfect world, Iraq would figure out a way to share revenues, geographically.
I expect a “3 state” solution, in Iraq. Even if it remains one country, I think it will be partitioned. This is not the Bush policy, but it might happen.
While Iraq sorts out its problems, the United States needs oil and Iraq is willing to sell us their oil.
What on Earth is the problem?
And YES
Check with the Veterans Administration:
We have been in a LEGAL STATE OF WAR IN IRAQ SINCE GEORGE H.W. BUSH, THROUGH ALL OF BILL CLINTON, AND NOW INTO THE TERM OF GEORGE W. BUSH!
How could we have any respect in the world had we allowed Saddam to violate the cease-fire agreement?
You can not have peace without strength.
We would have looked very, very weak if we had allowed the criminal Saddam to remain in power.
last I knew, Iraq was still a member of OPEC, one of those cartels Econ101 discusses.
http://www.opec.org/library/FAQs/aboutOPEC/q3.htm
Link that supports my above assertion.
Ya know, Econ101, the attempt to privatize the Iraqi oil reserves now that Saddam is gone could be viewed as an attempt to break OPEC down, by removal of one of its founding members (Iraq), which might explain a bit the resistance of the Iraqis to the proposed bill.
“While Iraq sorts out its problems, the United States needs oil and Iraq is willing to sell us their oil.
What on Earth is the problem?”
Posted by: Econ101
YOUR inability to read, and think?
Poor Econ101 cannot understand the difference between “purchase”, and who controls, and profits.
The Iraq Oil Union said it would go on strike if the PSA law the U.S. wants is passed.
‘Why Iraqis oppose U.S.-backed oil lawWorkers think foreign firms will take over’http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/08/19/IN69RI00G.DTL
Posted by: cosmos | September 18, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Oil schmoil! Terrorism, oil, human rights, UN sanctions all have a play in the great game of monopoly Corporate America (CA) is playing. So much intelligence and research is wasted on this blog. In the end you resort to labeling, name calling, and blind party loyalties without absorbing and evaluating the excellent material posted. You choose to debate over the ruling parties when the issue is about ruling classes.
We are in Iraq to establish a firm permanent military presence in a country with a government under CA control. This has not existed since the fall of the Shah in Iran. Yes we have military in Saudi Arabia, but we don’t control. If we did 911 may never had happened. Our alliance with Isreal is the closest we have to impose CA will in the region. Yes the oil barons will be pleased but have you considered the outsourcing potential for cheap labor for CA expansion?
And blaming Bush for this is ludicrous; he is no more ‘a decider’ than King Louis was with Cardinal Richelieu by his side. If anything we must blame ourselves for allowing ourselves to fall into a national ‘lynch mob’ mentality post 911. I, being from NY, also was there with lighter in hand singing “stick a boot in their ass”; just the same way I was when the military advisers were killed in Nam.
So it ain’t just about oil nor democracy. Econ101 is somewhat correct in oil affects all prices. You can’t transport corn from the midwest or cotton from the south in a hybrid semi.
But look what other CA benefits have come from their spin doctors in Washington. Is it a coincidence the number of foreclosures and credit card debt problems have risen since the bankruptcy laws were changed. Medical insurance costs have skyrocketed, but has there been tax relief for medical deductions back to pre Reagan days. Same for credit card interest, but for capitol gains they now have discounted tax rates.
Reagan gave CA huge tax breaks so they could reinvest and create new jobs; they did… in Asia. What about NAFTA? GM etal outsourced to Mexico. If they pay so well down there why do these illegals leave family and loved ones to live in fear of discovery among a people who detest them all for low paying jobs? Could it be the quest for the American Dream of making it to the top 10% of CA honchos?
Gotta go… I’m pissing myself off! Have a nice day ya’ll.
“You choose to debate over the ruling parties when the issue is about ruling classes.”
Actually, this occasionally come up, predictably followed by the extended, unhinged rants against “socialism.”
“I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Thomas Jefferson, 1812
Source:Liberty Quotes
http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/jeff.html
P.S. Yeah, my source is some guy’s homepage, but I’ve read it in the original. . .
We would have looked very, very weak if we had allowed the criminal Saddam to remain in power.
Posted by: Econ101—
Not if it appeared we ALLOWED Saddam to stay in power. America appears very powerful until we try to use that power to achieve specific ends. Now we are not “allowing” the civil war to rage in Iraq, we are simply powerless to stop it. As a result, we look much weaker than if we had simply scared Saddam into allowing the inspectors back in, and then moved on, “allowing” him to stay in power by our own choice. Because he’s not worth it.
Very true leftcoaster. Do I look weak because I don’t beat up my neighbor’s 7-year-old daughter when she ‘trespasses’ in my front yard? I think not.
“… we look much weaker than if we had simply scared Saddam into allowing the inspectors back in, and then moved on,… ”
Posted by: leftcoaster
We did scare him into allowing inspectors back in, and Iraq was even being pro-active re the inspections.
Then we forced the inspectors OUT, by invading.
Paul, the Bush regime only had one plan, securing the oil. They had no plan for actual success in Iraq. The liberals aren’t hypocrites, they knew this war was about oil before the invasion, they knew Bush was lying to the public when they planned to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people. The liberals have never been wrong when it has come to this Iraqi occupation. You still lie to everyone when you claim the Bushies were right about WMD, nuclear weapons, ties to terrorism and ties to 9/11. You have no credibility, you only have lies and think if you repeat them enough someone will believe them.
The mystique about American strength had been reborn after gulf war 1, and Bosnia. Unfortunately, bust 2 believed it, and has once again made us look like a weak and inefective nation by insisting on an occupation and nation building.
Doug
FACT: Saddam supported terrorists.
FACT: The Clinton Administration listed Iraq as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism.
FACT: Saddam trained Hijackers.
FACT: Saddam gave cash rewards to the families of suicide bombers.
FACT: Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Kerry and many other Democrats stated that Saddam had WMD’s. (So why is it a “lie” when Bush said it?)
VT
I agree that OPEC is a cartel.
OPEC is not subject to US law for what it does with Non-US produced oil, until that oil reaches the United States.
In my own way, I was trying to make a point that DOMESTIC (US) oil companies could simply sit back and stop trying to import oil or produce oil.
This would cause the price to go UP much faster.
American based oil companies are trying hard to tap new sources of oil around the world, including here in the United States.
If the oil companies got together and made a deal, with each other, not to make any MORE contracts or deals with Iraq — THAT would be illegal.
Anti-trust, right VT?
“In my own way, I was trying to make a point that DOMESTIC (US) oil companies could simply sit back and stop trying to import oil or produce oil.
This would cause the price to go UP much faster.”
Posted by: Econ101
OR… the U.S. could invest in SAVING oil, at a cost of under $20 per barrel, for EACH barrel saved.
That’s more than FOUR times CHEAPER than current oil prices!
1) It would drop world oil demand, and prices, faster, and cheaper than “trying to import oil or produce oil”.
2) It would help solve the human-caused global warming crisis.
3) It would eliminate the need for M-E oil wars.
But the U.S. instead prefers the other stupid, unsustainable, and much more expensive “solutions” (sic).
Econ101: “American based oil companies are trying hard to tap new sources of oil around the world, including here in the United States.”
All that’s left in the U.S. is high-priced, and high-risk oil.
You want it, Paul? Then hope future oil prices stay HIGH, until we deplete our tiny reserves — and become 100% dependent on foreign oil.
BTW Paul, that’s exactly what OPEC wants us to do — drill more in the U.S., and ignore higher energy efficiency.
Paul needs to stop watching the Fox Noise channel and actually get the facts. Sure Hussein had WMD in the 90s but that’s no reason to invade after he got rid of them after the first Iraqi invasion.
As usual, Paul is at least 10 years behind the rest of the world. Get an education Paul, you are a moron because all of the facts have been displayed out to you over and over again but you are just so much of a knuckledragger that you can’t comprehend anything lest it come out the mouth of a drug addled racist shock jock.
Hillary and Bill said Saddam had WMD’s what? FIVE years ago? Are they “knuckle draggers” too?
Doug, learn to respect your opponents.
That way, when we kick your ass, intellectually, you don’t look quite so bad.
Econ – and they also demanded that Saddam allow in inspectors to find out for sure. He did. And the inspectors confirmed that there was nothing of substance there.
“Hillary and Bill said Saddam had WMD’s what? FIVE years ago? Are they “knuckle draggers” too?”
Econ101, FIND a quote of them saying that after March 7, 2003, and post the link.
March 7 2003 | New York, USAStatement to the United Nations Security Council
‘The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update’http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml
The invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003.
It is about oil and when the Democrats pull us out of Iraq the price of crude with go well over $100/barrel. Then watch the Dems say “big oil should be taxed.”
Oil will hit 100 before bush is out of office, so he can say “Heckuva Job, Dickie!”, and “Mission Accomplished”.
you can NOT bitch about the price of gasoline
And
Simultaneously
Claim that US foreign policy should NOT protect the free flow of oil at market prices.
Again, if the US oil companies really wanted to make a fast buck, they would stop look for more oil and let the price go up!
Production keeps prices DOWN
“Production keeps prices DOWN”
Posted by: Econ101
GREAT idea Paul! /huge sarcasm!
More drilling, at $80 a barrel, and deplete Earth’s limited oil reserves.
Instead of the faster, cleaner, and cheaper (less than $20 per each barrel saved) investment in higher energy efficiency.
Paul wants us to do exactly what OPEC * WANTS * us to do!