Iraqi Oil profits..where do they go now?

[GostHacked]

Then you claim that the US bombed Iraq for no reason.  I've linked many times on this site to The Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq resolution, passed by Congress with both Democrat and Republican majorities.  I'm sure you have read the 23 clauses--it's not a long document.  But apparently, you are in such denial, that you choose to simply ignore it.

This is retarded. Think of it this way. Company A, wants to take over Company B, there are legal ways around it, and illegal ways. Company A, devises a plan. Then they bring their proposal to a board member body of some type. Board body says, NO, we cannot accept this. Company A had no intentions of ever going with what the Board body rules, so it is a done deal and Company A takes over Company B illegaly. Company A always wanted Company B and will do anything to take it down, including dealing with it's competitors. Some shifty shady deals are made. We all know Company A's so called 'dirt' was made up and a good chance planted by their trusted members. And when we find the truth about Company A, it is way to late. Company B has been sold off to the highest bidder that will provide kickbacks for Company A.

You would not accept this kind of behaviour among American companies. Trades and Commisions ect would come down hard on Comany A.

So I am gonna come over, steal all your stuff and sell your resources off to pay for the damage I have done to your property. Why? Because you did not play nice when I wanted you to have a fight with your neighour, you turned on me. And now you pay.

This should about sum up the mentality we are talking about here.

[August1991]

Gosthacked,

Your little story of Company A and Company B could well describe how Petro-Canada was created. The evidence is that governments which follow such policies do not create wealth but rather destroy it.

I will also note that only governments could act as you describe and not private companies.

I will also note that the Old Left went down this path before and it leads nowhere. The term used then was monopoly capitalism and it referred to the idea that western so-called democratic governments were under the control of large financial industrial groups. Vladimir Lenin referred to monopoly capitalism as the final stage of capitalism before the proletarian revolution installed true democracy, or some such. For all I know, there may still be some Leftists waiting for the collapse of capitalism...

BTW, you can make an extremely good argument against the US invasion of Iraq without having to look for oil company conspiracies.

Sudan, Angola...indeed, when your resources are coveted more highly by others than by yourself, you can stand to make great profits...or great suffering.

The problem in Nigeria, for example, is not that the oil wealth is covetted by outsiders. It is the various military factions that are disputing ownership of the royalties. They are like that couple in Ontario disputing ownership of the lottery winnings, except the Nigerian military usually shoot each other.

You are wrong on this one, August. Once the Multi-nationals have their hooks into the meat of the matter, it is only a question of how long the devouring will take. The US still has an embargo against Cuba because Cuba nationalized US assets, some 30-40 years ago. Those 'oil royalties' will be protected under force of arms for as long as they exist.

IME, multinationals just want a stable government to deal with. As to Cuba, the embargo was part of the Cold War which is now part of folklore, as is the embargo. I don't think the US government really cares one way or the other about Castro or the embargo now - except that some votes in Florida matter.

----

There seems to be confusion about "governments" and "corporations/multinationals". These two institutions are distinct. An individual can choose whether to deal with a corporation but an individual, short of leaving a country (and even then), has no choice in dealing with a government.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

As to Cuba, the embargo was part of the Cold War which is now part of folklore, as is the embargo.

No, the embargo against Cuba is still in place and still enforced. from...

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2005/12/12/embargo.shtml

CARICOM urged to break US embargo on Cuba

by Dawne Bennett

Caribbean Net News Barbados correspondent

Email: [email protected]

Monday,  December 12, 2005

BRIDGETOWN, Barbados: Barbados and its Caribbean Community (CARICOM) neighbours are being urged to increase their support for Cuba by undertaking an initiative to break the US embargo on that country.

Actually, some say that the enforcement of the embargo is getting worse, and the recent 'headline de jour' is about the Cuban baseball team.

from...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/o...ack=1&cset=true

Bullying Cuba out of ballpark

By Wayne S. Smith

Originally published December 27, 2005

The Treasury Department's recent announcement that it would not grant a license for a Cuban baseball team to participate in the World Baseball Classic planned for March was deeply disappointing but hardly a surprise.

On the contrary, it was in keeping with the Bush administration's policy of trying to seal off all contact with the Caribbean island. Cuban academics are no longer given visas to come to the United States for conferences. American scholars find it increasingly difficult to carry out programs in Cuba because of tightening U.S. restrictions

[Black Dog]

Hey, crazymf: you might want to bone up on that whole "consistency" thing.

And what's your problem? In the end, the people of Iraq are better off than they were, a tyrant is gone, democracy is in place. Spoils of war go to the victor. That's the way it is.

Practice? It's the way it is. It's more than a practice. It's a right. Whoever's in control calls the shots. The USA is effectively the government of Iraq until further notice, agreed?

Yay democracy.

[Montgomery Burns]

GostHacked:

This is retarded.  Think of it this way. Company A, wants to take over Company B, there are legal ways around it, and illegal ways. Company A, devises a plan. Then they bring their proposal to a board member body of some type. Board body says, NO, we cannot accept this. Company A had no intentions of ever going with what the Board body rules, so it is a done deal and Company A takes over Company B illegaly. Company A always wanted Company B and will do anything to take it down, including dealing with it's competitors. Some shifty shady deals are made. We all know Company A's so called 'dirt' was made up and a good chance planted by their trusted members. And when we find the truth about Company A, it is way to late. Company B has been sold off to the highest bidder that will provide kickbacks for Company A.

I agree with the first sentence in your quote.

You been dipping into BC's Kool-Aid?