Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: ZetaNine on June 18, 2008, 09:25:11 PM
-
BAGHDAD: Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.
Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq's Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.
The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.
-
Sounds like a win/win to me.
-
Sounds like a win/win to me.
me too........I'm not complaining.
-
you know those cool little trading games you can play, like dopewars or tradewinds or any of hte countless others where the goal is to kick everyone else in the nuts and grab as much money as possible that you can then hoard away for absolutely no apparent reason but still feel good about?
well they are based of real life.
-
You mean you actually thought it wasn't? :noid
-
Of course it was. Saddam didn't want Kuwait dipping into "his" oil. All down hill from there.
-
you know those cool little trading games you can play, like dopewars or tradewinds or any of hte countless others where the goal is to kick everyone else in the nuts and grab as much money as possible that you can then hoard away for absolutely no apparent reason but still feel good about?
well they are based of real life.
newsflash...real life existed before the the internet
-
what the the hell are you on about excel? :)
-
:aok
-
what the the hell are you on about excel? :)
:huh - notice the eye twitch.
-
what the the hell are you on about excel? :)
some of us don't need, or want to rely on the www to educate us on reality, political or otherwise...sort of along those lines. just thinking out loud really, which is probably why it was cryptic or nonsensical as the case may be, relative to your post. does that make sense? :)
jb88, you should get that seen too ;)
-
yer probably right.
it's been here since day one, so i've gotten used to it.
:huh - it kinda hurts.
-
BAGHDAD: Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.
Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq's Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.
The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.
now if only i could remember who i was telling this to waayy back when this all started, i could give them the ole "" i told ya so"" :rofl
-
when we clobber iran and get that sandbox stabilized we will have their resources returned to us as well. maybe this time we will set up a democratic republic and not some despotic dictatorship or oligarchy and the people of that country may be able to enjoy what we in the west enjoy.
-
Don't go there Storch. I don't think most people have thought it all out that some people around the world may not want/understand/need to be allowed free will and freedom to do whatever they think they want to do. They only need monarchy and theocracy.
-
pretty simplistic but....
In the end, I guess anything to do with the middle east is about oil.. without oil they are just backwards barbarians living in the sand with a ninth century religion to guide them on their path to slaughtering each other and no threat to anyone... not even Israel.
With oil.. they use massive amounts of petro dollars to fund terrorism and to allow their backward people to buy tickets to move and export their backwardness to europe and other places.
So yeah.. without oil we all could have just let them rot in tents stewing in their ninth century barbarism.
lazs
-
some of us don't need, or want to rely on the www to educate us on reality, political or otherwise...sort of along those lines. just thinking out loud really, which is probably why it was cryptic or nonsensical as the case may be, relative to your post. does that make sense? :)
jb88, you should get that seen too ;)
Ah well my original post did not suggest the life had imitated computer games. It was an imaginatiive way of saying 'we always knew it was about oil'.
-
when we clobber iran and get that sandbox stabilized we will have their resources returned to us as well. maybe this time we will set up a democratic republic and not some despotic dictatorship or oligarchy and the people of that country may be able to enjoy what we in the west enjoy.
NO MORE BLOOD FOR OIL! lamer.
-
Force americans to stop using any machine that consumes oil for seven days and see how willing they are to succeed in Iraq, rather than surrender like osama wants to.
-
well... this thread is a good example of just how dishonest the neocon socialists have been.
-
well... this thread is a good example of just how dishonest the neocon socialists have been.
Lot of name calling and disparaging remarks. I can see conversation isn't one of your strengths.
-
BAGHDAD: Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.
Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq's Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq's largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.
The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.
Awesome. Source, please?
-
Awesome. Source, please?
so who would you like to service Iraq oil fields? Venezuela, Russia, China, or maybe you would like Iran?
-
Awesome. Source, please?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/19/africa/19iraq.php
Total by way...is French owned I think...making this an american, brit, dutch and french deal
-
so who would you like to service Iraq oil fields? Venezuela, Russia, China, or maybe you would like Iran?
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Don't go there Storch. I don't think most people have thought it all out that some people around the world may not want/understand/need to be allowed free will and freedom to do whatever they think they want to do. They only need monarchy and theocracy.
Yes we spread freedom and democracy one bomb at a time. Seems to be working great. Now maybe Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP can pay back the 4 trillion dollar war debit out of their profits rather than my tax dollars.
-
btw if you want to see the reason we are in Iraq, this pretty much sums it up right here..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/
You wont find a better run up and explanation of what happened behind the scenes so to speak.
-
btw if you want to see the reason we are in Iraq, this pretty much sums it up right here..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/
You wont find a better run up and explanation of what happened behind the scenes so to speak.
It started when Sadaam invaded Kuwait, not with George W. Why is it his critics always conveniently forget about Iraq brutalizing their neighbor and the continued 12 year nose thumbing at the terms of their surrender?
-
dont you remember, the bush envoy winked at saddam. its all bush's fault.
-
It started when Sadaam invaded Kuwait, not with George W. Why is it his critics always conveniently forget about Iraq brutalizing their neighbor and the continued 12 year nose thumbing at the terms of their surrender?
Yes and if you care to look into the history of his invasion of Kuwait. You will learn we basically gave Saddam the go ahead to do that, by telling him we wouldn't interfere if he attacked Kuwait. That was back when Saddam was George Bush Sr's boy. Regardless the first Gulf War was not the second. There was no reason to go into Iraq a second time he was well contained and going nowhere.
-
Yes and if you care to look into the history of his invasion of Kuwait. You will learn we basically gave Saddam the go ahead to do that, by telling him we wouldn't interfere if he attacked Kuwait. That was back when Saddam was George Bush Sr's boy. Regardless the first Gulf War was not the second. There was no reason to go into Iraq a second time he was well contained and going nowhere.
It has been suggested that Saddam received mixed signals in regards to his invading Kuwait but certainly no one told him it was ok. We also gave him ample time to uninvade and he refused. He never abided by the terms he agreed to and presented a far greater potential threat than ever did binladen.
-
It has been suggested that Saddam received mixed signals in regards to his invading Kuwait but certainly no one told him it was ok. We also gave him ample time to uninvade and he refused. He never abided by the terms he agreed to and presented a far greater potential threat than ever did binladen.
How many people did Saddam kill on Sept. 11th?
-
How many people did Saddam kill on Sept. 11th?
The word is "potential". Perhaps you are one who complains when things go wrong but never want to take preventative measures?
-
The word is "potential". Perhaps you are one who complains when things go wrong but never want to take preventative measures?
Oh, there was potential-unfortunately, it was totally wasted.
IMHO, instead of Attacking Iraq, and overthrowing Saddam's regime, we should have brought him back under our wing and gave him his old job back-that of counterbalancing Iran in the region. It would have saved us immense grief, dollars, lives, and would have given us a 'B' player (The 'A' player would pretty much be Isreal) for any kind of future troubles...like the one's that appear to be looming in Iran. I doubt that Saddam would have had any qualms about going to war with Iran for us, and it would have been easier for him to do it than Isreal. Back here at home, It would have been more politically expedient to simply send arms to Iraq, and let them fight, than to spill American blood. Also, it would not have left our armed forces as (dangerously) overextended as they are today.
It's too late to talk about things' going wrong, and preventative measures, because we made the wrong choice to begin with.
-
Oh, there was potential-unfortunately, it was totally wasted.
IMHO, instead of Attacking Iraq, and overthrowing Saddam's regime, we should have brought him back under our wing and gave him his old job back-that of counterbalancing Iran in the region. It would have saved us immense grief, dollars, lives, and would have given us a 'B' player (The 'A' player would pretty much be Isreal) for any kind of future troubles...like the one's that appear to be looming in Iran. I doubt that Saddam would have had any qualms about going to war with Iran for us, and it would have been easier for him to do it than Isreal. Back here at home, It would have been more politically expedient to simply send arms to Iraq, and let them fight, than to spill American blood. Also, it would not have left our armed forces as (dangerously) overextended as they are today.
It's too late to talk about things' going wrong, and preventative measures, because we made the wrong choice to begin with.
Of course those he would have tortured and murdered probably wouldn't agree with you.
As to whether it was a waste or not eliminating him as a potential threat, guess we'll never know for sure.
-
Of course those he would have tortured and murdered probably wouldn't agree with you.
As to whether it was a waste or not eliminating him as a potential threat, guess we'll never know for sure.
They murder and torture in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, in just about all of the Middle-eastern countries. Sadly, that's what seems' to be the preffered method of keeping a regime in power over there. If the murder and torture thing is such a big deal, then, We have several other countries to tackle. Like Darfur.
I don't see Maliki's gov't. lasting once American troops' leave completely, if they ever do. We haven't had much luck trying to build-up and install governments' over in that region. The longest lasting one that I know of, was-ironically-Saddam's. You could maybe count the Saudi's, but they've alway's been there...they just started getting rich when we started buying their oil. I don't know how they'd be aligned if it weren't for that, seeing as how the 9/11 gang came from there.
-
But we all agree it was a mistake to invade this time, right? :aok
-
Lot of name calling and disparaging remarks. I can see conversation isn't one of your strengths.
labeling something correctly is hardly name calling iron... just look at the absurd hydrocarbon law the jackboot socialists are trying to ram down the iraqi's throats.
as for disparaging... watching you neocons flipping and flopping from one lame excuse to another does more to belittle your cause than any historical facts or words i can come up with.
-
It has been suggested that Saddam received mixed signals in regards to his invading Kuwait but certainly no one told him it was ok. We also gave him ample time to uninvade and he refused. He never abided by the terms he agreed to and presented a far greater potential threat than ever did binladen.
Sadam was never a threat to the US.. He really wasn't even a threat to Israel either. We were happy having Saddam be our dictator because he was the enemy of our enemy. Same as when we used bin Laden in Afghanistan. The difference between the two is bin Laden had attacked the US on several occasions.. so how do you figure Saddam was a bigger threat?
Bush and the neocons taking us to Iraq pretty much doomed the "real" war on terror. We could have had success in Afghanistan and likely stopped the spread of al Qaeda in Africa had we not went into Iraq. Instead we have two flaming turds that our military has been left trying to stomp out. Meanwhile the real problem and terrorism has spread out all over the world and will cause who knows who much problems in ther future.
Bush and the neocons dropped the ball in a major way when we had the entire world behind. Instead of doing what needed to be done they pushed their own agenda and have now screwed this country and the world over in a major way.
-
Sadam was a threat to the US.. He really was a threat to Israel also. We were happy having Saddam be our little beotch dictator because he was the enemy of our enemy. Same as when we used bin Laden in Afghanistan. The difference between the two is bin Laden had attacked the US on several occasions.. so Saddam was a big threat too!
Bush and the neocons taking us to Iraq pretty much started the "real" war on terror. We have had good success in Afghanistan and likely stopped the spread of al Qaeda in Africa by going into Iraq. Now we have two flaming turds that our military has been stomping out. Meanwhile there have been far less attacks in Iraq and none in the USA. Even all over the world muslim nutjobs are hiding like the cockroaches they are and will cause alot less problems in the future.
Bush and the neocons kicked the ball through the goal posts in a major way when the entire world lagged far behind depending on US to take care of what they had no spine for. Instead of no one doing what needed to be done they pushed their own agenda and have now left a winning ball game to be lost by the light dark child messiah who will screw this country and the world over in a major way.
-
They murder and torture in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, in just about all of the Middle-eastern countries. Sadly, that's what seems' to be the preffered method of keeping a regime in power over there. If the murder and torture thing is such a big deal, then, We have several other countries to tackle. Like Darfur.
Can't take 'em on and change 'em all at one time.
-
Sadam was a threat to the US.. He really was a threat to Israel also. We were happy having Saddam be our little beotch dictator because he was the enemy of our enemy. Same as when we used bin Laden in Afghanistan. The difference between the two is bin Laden had attacked the US on several occasions.. so Saddam was a big threat too!
Bush and the neocons taking us to Iraq pretty much started the "real" war on terror. We have had good success in Afghanistan and likely stopped the spread of al Qaeda in Africa by going into Iraq. Now we have two flaming turds that our military has been stomping out. Meanwhile there have been far less attacks in Iraq and none in the USA. Even all over the world muslim nutjobs are hiding like the cockroaches they are and will cause alot less problems in the future.
Bush and the neocons kicked the ball through the goal posts in a major way when the entire world lagged far behind depending on US to take care of what they had no spine for. Instead of no one doing what needed to be done they pushed their own agenda and have now left a winning ball game to be lost by the light dark child messiah who will screw this country and the world over in a major way.
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/speedy420/the%20interwebs/fry-see-what-you-did-there-scaled.jpg)
And it wasn't very creative. :D
-
Can't take 'em on and change 'em all at one time.
That's true, AK-but I believe we blew a golden oppurtunity to have kept Saddam as our player over there for the "dirty" work. There were much, MUCH more deserving targets' in the WoT than a Regime change in Iraq, that may or may not work. God help us if we don't have to get embroiled in anything else whilst we are still engaged in Afghanistan or Iraq. Our Military options' have become pretty limited.
-
Sadam was a threat to the US.. He really was a threat to Israel also. We were happy having Saddam be our little beotch dictator because he was the enemy of our enemy. Same as when we used bin Laden in Afghanistan. The difference between the two is bin Laden had attacked the US on several occasions.. so Saddam was a big threat too!
The best he could do was some half-assed conventional Scud firings. Hamas does more damage in a week than Saddam did during the whole Gulf war. Your right on having him on our side, Although as far as Bin Laden, he was merely a cog in the whole Afghan resistance movement. He simply stood in line with the rest of the mujahideen when we started running money and guns' to them. Yes, Bin Laden has attacked the U.S. directly. Not Saddam. How was Saddam a big threat?
Bush and the neocons taking us to Iraq pretty much started the "real" war on terror. We have had good success in Afghanistan and likely stopped the spread of al Qaeda in Africa by going into Iraq. Now we have two flaming turds that our military has been stomping out. Meanwhile there have been far less attacks in Iraq and none in the USA. Even all over the world muslim nutjobs are hiding like the cockroaches they are and will cause alot less problems in the future.
Bush and co. did start the war on Terror, but sure as hell not in Iraq. They got a good (great?) start by going into Afghanistan after Bin Laden and his Al-Queda network, along with deposing the Taliban. But stopping and leaving the job half-done to go into Iraq, was a blunder. If anything, going into Iraq only caused the spread of Al-Queda in Iraq, and it did absolutely nothing about keeping them out of Africa...Perhaps' making it worse, with Al-Queda retreating there from the Middle east, and setting up new networks' and bases there. Our Military will be busy for quite some time chasing flaming turds...Hopefully, not any more at one time than we have now, or we might have some real problems. The decrease in violence in Iraq (and the U.S., as well) could be attributed to the fact that they want to wait and see what the results of our National elections' will be. If a new POTUS results in the withdrawal of troops' from Iraq, they might just have to wait until force levels' go down far enough, then they will overthrow the gov't. we installed. Lot cheaper for them, that way. The problems' are all in the future, at this point.
Bush and the neocons kicked the ball through the goal posts in a major way when the entire world lagged far behind depending on US to take care of what they had no spine for. Instead of no one doing what needed to be done they pushed their own agenda and have now left a winning ball game to be lost by the light dark child messiah who will screw this country and the world over in a major way.
The ball's still up in the air, and the future's yet to be. We haven't seen the final results of our actions' yet, and probably won't for at least 5-10 years. Having spine, and having brains, are two different things entirely...
-
Sadam was a threat to the US.. He really was a threat to Israel also. We were happy having Saddam be our little beotch dictator because he was the enemy of our enemy. Same as when we used bin Laden in Afghanistan. The difference between the two is bin Laden had attacked the US on several occasions.. so Saddam was a big threat too!
Bush and the neocons taking us to Iraq pretty much started the "real" war on terror. We have had good success in Afghanistan and likely stopped the spread of al Qaeda in Africa by going into Iraq. Now we have two flaming turds that our military has been stomping out. Meanwhile there have been far less attacks in Iraq and none in the USA. Even all over the world muslim nutjobs are hiding like the cockroaches they are and will cause alot less problems in the future.
Bush and the neocons kicked the ball through the goal posts in a major way when the entire world lagged far behind depending on US to take care of what they had no spine for. Instead of no one doing what needed to be done they pushed their own agenda and have now left a winning ball game to be lost by the light dark child messiah who will screw this country and the world over in a major way.
I guess you're one of the ones that still thinks al Qaeda was working with Saddam in some secret agenda to doom the free world.. The CIA and Powell had the right idea for what needed to be done in the war on terror, right up untill they both caved and became lap dogs for Rumpsfield.
Maybe if you keep looking you will find some WMD's under a doormat in Iraq...
-
Fear not, no one is getting at that oil any time soon--In response to all the negative media, the development of Iraq's' oil fields is going up to bid now--sad, as this was the QUICKEST way to get a few million more barrels a day on the market (upgrading Iraq's dilapidated oil industry) and thereby drop the price---now the bid process will drag it out into next spring. Loser for all concerned
Consider the peregrinations of the Democrats on the question of Iraq and oil. At first, many of them charged that Iraq was a war for oil. Then, they complained that then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz had been wrong in his pre-war reassurance that Iraq could pay for much of its own reconstruction i.e., it wasnt enough of a war for oil. By this past April, when Gen. David Petraeus testified before Congress, they were practically banging the table demanding that Iraq pay for more of the war with its own oil revenues. Now, with Iraq moving to earn more of such revenues slated for reconstruction, Schumer together with Sens. John Kerry and Claire McCaskill is urging Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to step in and quash the deal.
link (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmNkYTVhZWNlNGI1ZDExMWRlMjE3YjNiYWEyN2NiOTk)
-
Fear not, no one is getting at that oil any time soon--In response to all the negative media, the development of Iraq's' oil fields is going up to bid now--sad, as this was the QUICKEST way to get a few million more barrels a day on the market (upgrading Iraq's dilapidated oil industry) and thereby drop the price---now the bid process will drag it out into next spring. Loser for all concerned
link (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmNkYTVhZWNlNGI1ZDExMWRlMjE3YjNiYWEyN2NiOTk)
regardless of what happens...they could suddenly discover an endless supply of oil, so easily accessable that it only costs a couple bucks per barrel to get it out and refine it. they've seen we'll pay this price. it will stay here and they'll make more.
-
now the bid process will drag it out into next spring. Loser for all concerned
bid process?
-
bid process?
only one of those companies is american owned.
-
So with the profits of the major American oil companies, they should be able to hire Blackwater for security of their oil fields right? Leaving us to pull out?
:noid
-
Zetanine, you can modify your post instead of quoting it in another post :rofl
-
Zetanine, you can modify your post instead of quoting it in another post :rofl
my bad...........I should not be mixing the cough syrup with the dewers...........
-
only one of those companies is american owned.
bet they lose the bid
-
bet they lose the bid
I bet you're right....it's Exxon.