Iraqi oil fields bought [Archive]

Zombie Acorn

Dec 11, 2009, 11:15 AM

Looks like the real reason behind the Iraq war is finally being wrapped up. The oil field free for all grabs are coming to a close.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8407274.stm

Why do these countries/companies have the right to buy into these reserves? Is it an extension of the puppet governments?

As long as Iraq is being compensated accordingly I don't mind, if they aren't going to harness the oil someone else should and pay them for it, maybe boost their economy and get them out of their ********. That being said if the US would have bought in on this everyone would have blown up.

Eraserhead

Dec 11, 2009, 11:21 AM

As long as Iraq is being compensated accordingly I don't mind,

Yeah the Iraqis are going to collect the difference between $1.39 and $69 (the current price (http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/energyprices.html)) minus possibly transportation costs (but they aren't going to be very high).

Zombie Acorn

Dec 11, 2009, 11:25 AM

Yeah the Iraqis are going to collect the difference between $1.39 and $69 (the current price) minus possibly transportation costs (but they aren't going to be very high).

Sounds like a good deal to me. Proper usage of natural resources should be a great help to them, if their government isn't corrupt we could also see a better standard of living in the area which will likely lead to less radicalization.

NT1440

Dec 11, 2009, 12:02 PM

iShater

Dec 11, 2009, 12:12 PM

Sounds like a good deal to me. Proper usage of natural resources should be a great help to them, if their government isn't corrupt we could also see a better standard of living in the area which will likely lead to less radicalization.

We can hope, but that seems like a big if to me.

You mean like it was before the first gulf war and the years of UN sanctions? Sounds like you guys haven't been paying attention until the last war.

Zombie Acorn

Dec 11, 2009, 12:14 PM

You mean like it was before the first gulf war and the years of UN sanctions? Sounds like you guys haven't been paying attention until the last war.

You are going to have to be more specific, the Iraqi people were not living in good conditions before we went in. Saddam could do basically anything he wanted, and did. Now they have a chance to have decent living conditions (which they may have had before) and be free.

Also we can't go back in the past, you seem to be lurking there. Try looking forward.

Tesselator

Dec 11, 2009, 12:41 PM

Looks like the real reason behind the Iraq war is finally being wrapped up. The oil field free for all grabs are coming to a close.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8407274.stm

Why do these countries/companies have the right to buy into these reserves? Is it an extension of the puppet governments?

Yes.

As long as Iraq is being compensated accordingly...

Yeah the Iraqis are going to collect ...

Who is "Iraq" and who are the "Iraqis" you're referring to? Who's running the show and where is the money really going?

--
iShater is right tho. We should recognize the past in order to evaluate the present or determine if the plans for the future are wise or woeful.

Eraserhead

Dec 11, 2009, 12:47 PM

Who is "Iraq" and who are the "Iraqis" you're referring to? Who's running the show and where is the money really going?

Who are you saying will be collecting the extra money?

iShater

Dec 11, 2009, 12:48 PM

You are going to have to be more specific, the Iraqi people were not living in good conditions before we went in. Saddam could do basically anything he wanted, and did. Now they have a chance to have decent living conditions (which they may have had before) and be free.

Also we can't go back in the past, you seem to be lurking there. Try looking forward.

And I am not lurking in the past, but to make statements that indicate that a nation is for the first time going to prosper is not correct. Now Nori and the US "could do basically anything they wanted, and do".

And your comment about "radicalization", as if Iraq has been exporting radicals is inaccurate.

And I agree with Tesselator for the first time. :eek:

Queso

Dec 11, 2009, 12:50 PM

Who are you saying will be collecting the extra money?
I think he has a point. The money might well be initially going to the Iraqi government, but where does it go from there?

Zombie Acorn

Dec 11, 2009, 12:50 PM

Tesselator

Dec 11, 2009, 12:52 PM

Who are you saying will be collecting the extra money?

I'm asking.

Eraserhead

Dec 11, 2009, 12:53 PM

I think he has a point. The money might well be initially going to the Iraqi government, but where does it go from there?

Isn't that up to the Iraqi's to sort out?

Or is the implication that the US/British governments are going to be collecting or something?

Queso

Dec 11, 2009, 12:55 PM

Isn't that up to the Iraqi's to sort out?
They may not have a choice. The decision was possibly made back in 2003, straight after the invasion.

Or is the implication that the US/British governments are going to be collecting or something?
Time will tell.

awmazz

Dec 11, 2009, 01:00 PM

You are going to have to be more specific, the Iraqi people were not living in good conditions before we went in.

You have to be more specific about 'before we went in'. Do you mean in 2003, after more than a decade of near-total financial and trade embargo by force (including not even being able to fly around in their own country) where they couldn't sell anything, including all their oil, or even buy anything, including medicine to treat the children suffering from depleted uranium poisoning from those utterly filthy armaments the US deployed? They couldn't even buy food, had to exchange oil for it, like some feudal bartering system.

You forget the US 'went in' on August 6, 1990 (to restore the undemocratic and feudal 'royal' fat pigs of Kuwait to their thrones, tell me again why you fought your Revolution?), when the embargo started. And practically bombed that country every day for nigh on 12 years solid. UNICEF estimates the death toll at approx 500,000 between 1990 and 2002. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark estimates it at 1.5 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning, etc).

Walter Russell Mead argued that invading Iraq would be a better alternative than continuing the sanctions regime. And he was right. Doesn't make you right though about the 'before we went in'.

Also we can't go back in the past, you seem to be lurking there. Try looking forward.

And you seem to forget the past. Ultra short term memory loss. We're not talking ancient history here. It's like actually in any current teenager's lifetime, so where's to lurk? We're talking more recent than Michael Jackson's last big hit.

awmazz

Dec 11, 2009, 01:18 PM

Prosperity under someones boot doesn't really equal prosperity at all.

Tell that to the Chinese living under the godless despotic freedom-hating totalitarian Communist regime. They must be feeling the boots of the PLA on their throats every day they're enjoying their ever increasing new not prosperity.

Anyway, under the boot is subjective. Sure, if you went against Saddam you'd feel the boot. Ironically that actually applied to Al Qaeda. Pro-Iranian Shi'ites too. Basically the same people America doesn't like now either.

But a woman would have been better off under Saddam's rule than today. Better education, equal work opportunities, no patriarchal religious traditions enforced on them in the most secular Arab state in the world etc. Other minorities as well. Tell me another Arab nation that ever had a Christian as the Foreign Minister? How many Christians in the Iraqi govt now? There were Synagogues in Baghdad too.

Tesselator

Dec 11, 2009, 01:52 PM

Isn't that up to the Iraqi's to sort out?

Or is the implication that the US/British governments are going to be collecting or something?

It's usually not "governments" but rather power families. Like Royal Dutch Shell - Prince Bernhard, and all that implies. Usually the people "the Iraqis" in this case, suffer more or benefit little - usually - historically.

Eraserhead

Dec 11, 2009, 02:08 PM

Like Royal Dutch Shell

How are Royal Dutch Shell going to get more than their $1.39? Petronas would have to get their share too... And its unlikely that both of them could successfully conspire to keep it secret.

Peterkro

Dec 11, 2009, 02:11 PM

You have to be more specific about 'before we went in'. Do you mean in 2003, after more than a decade of near-total financial and trade embargo by force (including not even being able to fly around in their own country) where they couldn't sell anything, including all their oil, or even buy anything, including medicine to treat the children suffering from depleted uranium poisoning from those utterly filthy armaments the US deployed? They couldn't even buy food, had to exchange oil for it, like some feudal bartering system.

You forget the US 'went in' on August 6, 1990 (to restore the undemocratic and feudal 'royal' fat pigs of Kuwait to their thrones, tell me again why you fought your Revolution?), when the embargo started. And practically bombed that country every day for nigh on 12 years solid. UNICEF estimates the death toll at approx 500,000 between 1990 and 2002. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark estimates it at 1.5 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning, etc).

Walter Russell Mead argued that invading Iraq would be a better alternative than continuing the sanctions regime. And he was right. Doesn't make you right though about the 'before we went in'.

And you seem to forget the past. Ultra short term memory loss. We're not talking ancient history here. It's like actually in any current teenager's lifetime, so where's to lurk? We're talking more recent than Michael Jackson's last big hit.

The recent history of Iraq (the early twentieth century till now) has been dominated by western attempts to steal their oil,British USian or whoever the Iraqi people (by that I mean most Iraqi's not the thieving murderous bastards of whom Hussain was an example) have and will not get zilch,unless and I hope this happens, they seize back their country and their oilfields and kick the westerners out with no compensation. It's probably a forlorn hope but I'll stick to it.

iShater

Dec 11, 2009, 02:14 PM

Prosperity under someones boot doesn't really equal prosperity at all.

So what is your point? :D

American occupation?

What about China? Russia? etc.

Tesselator

Dec 11, 2009, 03:09 PM

How are Royal Dutch Shell going to get more than their $1.39? Petronas would have to get their share too... And its unlikely that both of them could successfully conspire to keep it secret.

I don't understand. The question was "Who are these Iraqis you speak of?". If they are in power only or primarily by the hand of RDS (FOR EXAMPLE) then both are in the same circle and there is no "secret" to keep. And of course anyone pointing out the relationships will be called a conspiracy theorist and people will post funny pics, etc..

So what is your point? :D

American occupation?

What about China? Russia? etc.

Are you saying that the US should measure their level of oppression by the standards set by China and Russia?

BTW there are a lot of international travelers (myself included) and educated Russians who would say that in current times Russia is far more free and offers it's citizens far more liberty than the USA. As a frequent traveler to China I can tell you that CHina feels much freer as well - although that's primarily skin deep. Under the surface there isn't much difference between most parts of China and the USA these days. The USA is worse in some areas and China is worse in others.

Eraserhead

Dec 11, 2009, 03:13 PM

I don't understand. The question was "Who are these Iraqis you speak of?". If they are in power only or primarily by the hand of RDS (FOR EXAMPLE) then both are in the same circle and there is no "secret" to keep.

I don't understand how you think Royal Dutch (for example) are going to be able to keep more than their $1.39/barrel.

Zombie Acorn

Dec 11, 2009, 03:16 PM

You have to be more specific about 'before we went in'. Do you mean in 2003, after more than a decade of near-total financial and trade embargo by force (including not even being able to fly around in their own country) where they couldn't sell anything, including all their oil, or even buy anything, including medicine to treat the children suffering from depleted uranium poisoning from those utterly filthy armaments the US deployed? They couldn't even buy food, had to exchange oil for it, like some feudal bartering system.

You forget the US 'went in' on August 6, 1990 (to restore the undemocratic and feudal 'royal' fat pigs of Kuwait to their thrones, tell me again why you fought your Revolution?), when the embargo started. And practically bombed that country every day for nigh on 12 years solid. UNICEF estimates the death toll at approx 500,000 between 1990 and 2002. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark estimates it at 1.5 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning, etc).

Walter Russell Mead argued that invading Iraq would be a better alternative than continuing the sanctions regime. And he was right. Doesn't make you right though about the 'before we went in'.

And you seem to forget the past. Ultra short term memory loss. We're not talking ancient history here. It's like actually in any current teenager's lifetime, so where's to lurk? We're talking more recent than Michael Jackson's last big hit.

You edited a big portion of my post out. Thats where I specified, so don't ask for more specifics if you are going to cut my post in fourths.

Iraqi's definitely had a better standard of living than they do at this very moment, but it was under a cruel dictator. Now they will have a chance for real freedom. Do I think we should have went in there? No. Can I go back in the past to change things? No. So lets look forward.

Zombie Acorn

Dec 11, 2009, 03:19 PM

So what is your point? :D

American occupation?

What about China? Russia? etc.

You must assume that I am pro-occupation of the countries we are in right now. I am not. If it were my choice we'd be out of all of them.

Also we are not dictators.

Badandy

Dec 11, 2009, 04:00 PM

BTW there are a lot of international travelers (myself included) and educated Russians who would say that in current times Russia is far more free and offers it's citizens far more liberty than the USA. As a frequent traveler to China I can tell you that CHina feels much freer as well - although that's primarily skin deep. Under the surface there isn't much difference between most parts of China and the USA these days. The USA is worse in some areas and China is worse in others.

LOL.

Desertrat

Dec 13, 2009, 12:50 PM

I don't understand the apparent confusion of the opening post. This is nothing more than a standard deal. Iraq is not unique in lacking a particular technology; in this case it's large-scale drilling for oil. Many other countries without the technology do the same deal: Do a letting for contracts for exploration, development and production.

The fee of $1.39 is over and above the actual cost of production. So, take the world price of oil at any point in time and subtract the COP + $1.39. That's Iraq's profit on the deal. Just guessing, but the odds are that the COP might run somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 to $30 per barrel. Could be more; might be less. (I've no idea about the security and pipelining costs. Plus, employee pay will be high.)

Seems to me a reasonable guesstimate would be for Iraq's treasury to net around $40 a barrel.

iShater

Dec 14, 2009, 08:53 AM

You must assume that I am pro-occupation of the countries we are in right now. I am not. If it were my choice we'd be out of all of them.

Also we are not dictators.

I made no such assumptions, just wanted your posts to not ignore the history.

And "we are not dictators" in the normal sense, we just pull the strings behind the puppets. ;)

Macky-Mac

Dec 18, 2009, 01:19 PM

It seems like these companies aren't the only people interested in getting their hands on some iraqi oil....

Al Jazeera reports (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/2009121816934643863.html);

Iraq has accused Iran of seizing control of a disputed oilfield along the border between the two countries.

Eleven Iranian soldiers took control of a well at the Fauqa oilfield in Maysan province, about 300km southeast of Baghdad, Ahmed Ali al-Khafaji, Iraq's deputy interior minster, said on Friday.

"At 3:30 this afternoon, 11 Iranian [soldiers] infiltrated the Iran-Iraq border and took control of the oil well. They raised the Iranian flag, and they are still there until this moment," he told the Reuters news agency.

There was no immediate comment on the alleged incident from Tehran....

IntheNet

Dec 18, 2009, 01:35 PM

"..."At 3:30 this afternoon, 11 Iranian [soldiers] infiltrated the Iran-Iraq border and took control of the oil well. They raised the Iranian flag, and they are still there until this moment," he told the Reuters news agency...."

Al Jazeera reports (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/2009121816934643863.html);

A perfect opportunity for our State Department to have our U.S. soldiers in Iraq grab these 11 Iranian spies and trade them for these three American (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/676293) hikers...

bobber205

Dec 18, 2009, 01:41 PM

Eraserhead

Dec 18, 2009, 02:08 PM

KingYaba

Jan 18, 2010, 04:33 PM

Deal has been finalized. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8464295.stm 1.8 million barrels a day is the pledge.

ArrowSmith

Jan 18, 2010, 06:22 PM

Yes.

Who is "Iraq" and who are the "Iraqis" you're referring to? Who's running the show and where is the money really going?

--
iShater is right tho. We should recognize the past in order to evaluate the present or determine if the plans for the future are wise or woeful.

Who's running the show in Wash DC except for the powerful and moneyed interests? Don't apply a double-standard to Iraq! :cool::apple:

NathanMuir

Jan 19, 2010, 11:58 AM

A perfect opportunity for our State Department to have our U.S. soldiers in Iraq grab these 11 Iranian spies and trade them for these three American (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/676293) hikers...

You really think that they're hikers? I mean granted, they(or some of them as I remember) are from Berkley so the prospect they work for a US gov't agency is slim, but...

rasmasyean

Jan 22, 2010, 05:13 PM

They are only charging $1.39 or something per barrel to extract the oil. And while Shell (60%) and Petronas (40%) are involved. Petronas is Malaysian, and they weren't involved in the Iraq war. (percentages source from here (http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsbusiness.php?id=461735))

It’s so sad that China gets a stake in this. They did nothing and even held a political standpoint against the war. I wouldn’t be surprised if they secretly delivered arms to the insurgency. I guess this kind of shows how the world has come to depend on China for cheap labor and manufactured goods. So sad, though. Should have excluded them and let them rot and just make everything in Mexico or something.

Eraserhead

Jan 22, 2010, 05:19 PM

It’s so sad that China gets a stake in this.

Are you talking about the Halfaya field?

rasmasyean

Jan 22, 2010, 05:28 PM

And I am not lurking in the past, but to make statements that indicate that a nation is for the first time going to prosper is not correct. Now Nori and the US "could do basically anything they wanted, and do".

And your comment about "radicalization", as if Iraq has been exporting radicals is inaccurate.

And I agree with Tesselator for the first time. :eek:

“Radicalization” represents a small minority of people. And Iraq actually has had a history of educated people and some form of modernization as a result. It’s not like Afghanistan where people were born into medieval times with AK-47’s replacing swords. Maybe some of the “richer” people fled, but when times become more prosperous, many of those people will go back home for various reasons…one of the big driving forces would be economic opportunity.

Eraserhead

Jan 22, 2010, 05:47 PM

Are you talking about the Halfaya field?

To clarify this, my post you quoted was talking about Petronas and Shell winning a contract on the Majnoon oil field which has nothing to do with China, though they did manage to invest in another field.

rasmasyean

Jan 22, 2010, 08:16 PM

:D

Under the 20-year deal, Eni and partners—Los Angeles-based Occidental Petroleum Corp. and South Korea's KOGAS—will develop the 4.1 billion barrel Zubair field for $2 per barrel produced above the current production.

The deal boosts Iraq's drive to bring in Western oil technology and raise output. It also marks the first entry by a U.S. oil company to Iraq since the country nationalized its oil industry in 1970.

...

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_14246754

rasmasyean

Jan 22, 2010, 08:40 PM

Isn't that up to the Iraqi's to sort out?

Or is the implication that the US/British governments are going to be collecting or something?

In the context that some of you are implying…

Some of the money may go to the US/UK etc. in the form of “discounted oil” effectively for repayment for “liberating” the Iraqis (or “bringing to power” the regime…depending on your political standpoint).

Some of the money (prolly a lot) will go toward rearming Iraq with high priced US weapons (and UK too but some of those are simply already inside US branded weapons).

rasmasyean

Jan 22, 2010, 08:53 PM

And anyone moronic enough to hike along an international border - when they don't have a visa for both countries - is a fool.

Walking along the US/Canada border as a non-national without a passport/visa for both would be pretty foolish.

It doesn’t really matter about these petty lives in the end. What really counts is how the power players can use these “incidents” to escalate to a bigger scheme to achieve a larger political objective. If you ask me, I think it’s just more tension to throw in the pot of Iran-Iraq War II. Funny thing is that both sides will be using US made weapons…although from different periods! LOL

Rt&Dzine

Jan 23, 2010, 08:29 AM

Some background information that supports the OP's premise.

Greg Palast, writing March 17, 2005, for BBC News' Newsnight, reported that insiders at the U.S. Department of State related that there were two conflicting plans "setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of 'Big Oil' executives and US State Department 'pragmatists'" on the other. "'Big Oil' appears to have won." [3]

Palast wrote that, "The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was ... drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants." In fact, insiders told Palast, "planning began 'within weeks' of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oil_and_War_in_Iraq

skunk

Jan 23, 2010, 08:33 AM

It doesn’t really matter about these petty lives in the end. What really counts is how the power players can use these “incidents” to escalate to a bigger scheme to achieve a larger political objective. If you ask me, I think it’s just more tension to throw in the pot of Iran-Iraq War II. Funny thing is that both sides will be using US made weapons…although from different periods! LOLFunnier still is that the Iraqi government is supported by the Iranian government, so your Wet Dream War II ain't gonna happen.

Eraserhead

Jan 23, 2010, 10:13 AM

Some of the money may go to the US/UK etc. in the form of “discounted oil” effectively for repayment for “liberating” the Iraqis (or “bringing to power” the regime…depending on your political standpoint).

Given the US and UK are largely disliked in the region (due to this and Israel mainly) I think they are more at risk from the people of Iraq than pissing off the Americans and British.

rasmasyean

Jan 23, 2010, 03:38 PM

Given the US and UK are largely disliked in the region (due to this and Israel mainly) I think they are more at risk from the people of Iraq than pissing off the Americans and British.

Perhaps, but it’s really up to the regime to control the people and make them agree and compromise to avert yet another civil war. On the other hand, if they don’t hold up to their end of whatever deals they made to attain power, it will just viewed as a betrayal and then may lead to yet another regime change by US and UK. Look at Sadam. At first we liked him. Then we hunted him down like an animal and killed him. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a full scale invasion either. At this point, there are many parties who would like to oust them and all that needs to be done is to help one side vs. the other…and it was already demonstrated who has the best weapons to “donate”.

skunk

Jan 23, 2010, 03:50 PM

Perhaps, but it’s really up to the regime to control the people and make them agree and compromise to avert yet another civil war. On the other hand, if they don’t hold up to their end of whatever deals they made to attain power, it will just viewed as a betrayal and then may lead to yet another regime change by US and UK. Look at Sadam. At first we liked him. Then we hunted him down like an animal and killed him.A bit less of the "we", please. The UK certainly would not be along for the ride again. One catastrophic illegal invasion is enough.

And please don't start with the giant type again, it does not reinforce a point if the point is not there. 2 x 0 = 0.

Eraserhead

Jan 23, 2010, 03:58 PM

then may lead to yet another regime change by US and UK.

It isn't going to happen. Not only (as skunk points out) is the UK or any other country unlikely to go along with it as the political fallout wasn't worth it. Additionally your banker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRC) probably won't be happy to bankroll another middle eastern adventure.

Eraserhead

Jan 23, 2010, 04:03 PM

At this point, there are many parties who would like to oust them

Such as?

and all that needs to be done is to help one side vs. the other…and it was already demonstrated who has the best weapons to “donate”.

That was a great strategy last time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen), and it didn't have any negative consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11) at all :rolleyes:.

rasmasyean

Jan 23, 2010, 05:27 PM

A bit less of the "we", please. The UK certainly would not be along for the ride again. One catastrophic illegal invasion is enough.

And please don't start with the giant type again, it does not reinforce a point if the point is not there. 2 x 0 = 0.

Why are you always complaining about giant types? What kind of computer / browser are you using? Maybe it has the fonts confused.

rasmasyean

Jan 23, 2010, 05:31 PM

Such as?

That was a great strategy last time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen), and it didn't have any negative consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11) at all :rolleyes:.

What are you talking about? Afghanistan? Some would say that Afghanistan has a decent part to play in the fall of the Soviet Union. Prolly exagerated but every bit counts. I'm sure it didn't help the Soviets to lose multi-million dollar equipment to 50 thousand dollar missles considering they were pretty poor from the nuclear race. And having so many troops killed there prolly had some negative consequences in popularity.

I'd say that having 3000 ppl blow up is better than having a total world apocalypse.

Eraserhead

Jan 23, 2010, 05:32 PM

Why are you always complaining about giant types? What kind of computer / browser are you using? Maybe it has the fonts confused.

While I do think you should always use the standard text, the "larger" text isn't significantly bigger.

211934

skunk

Jan 23, 2010, 05:32 PM

Why are you always complaining about giant types? What kind of computer / browser are you using? Maybe it has the fonts confused.I am using Safari on a Mac. The codes you attach, , are quite clearly visible when replying to your posts. See, [size=3]I can do it too.

Eraserhead

Jan 23, 2010, 05:37 PM

See, I can do it too.

On my computer that is much bigger that his... I think his font is smaller than standard.

rasmasyean

Jan 24, 2010, 06:47 PM

It isn't going to happen. Not only (as skunk points out) is the UK or any other country unlikely to go along with it as the political fallout wasn't worth it. Additionally your banker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRC) probably won't be happy to bankroll another middle eastern adventure.

What political fallout are you talking about? I don’t see how the few regulars in “anti-war protesting”, etc. had any real political influence. It looks more like the job in Iraq is on the verge of completion and now everyone is looking forward to reap the benefits…including and especially the Iraqis. While Afghanistan still remains a bit unstable, in reality, no one really cares that much about this little country unfortunately (just like history). All you get is the same anti-war ramble, etc. etc. and what I’ve see is that international terrorism has been nerfed quite a bit relative to what it used to be like. Perhaps many of them were killed…perhaps we have given them a place to fulfill their carnage? Whatever. Other than clinging to an old standpoint, I don’t see the point in being so negative about these events…other than a few people who can’t admit they calculated wrong in that the world wears peace symbols no matter what.

As for China, I’m not quite sure we are that dependent on that. The US military industry has been a giant with massive stockpiles since the Cold War. Costs of war you read are a bit exaggerated because much of the equipment and munitions already existed and were prolly classified. True that because of the war, a lot of investment has been put into pie-in-the-sky technology…but as always, we see them have commercial benefits as well down the line. And many have already emerged.

And I think you’d be underestimating UK. UK has pretty much always been almost synonymous with US when it comes to these things. They may as well be one country.

Eraserhead

Jan 24, 2010, 06:56 PM

What political fallout are you talking about?

The British government is currently admitting the war was conducted on pretty dodgy ground in an official enquiry - see this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8378559.stm). And Tony Blair lost a top job in Europe at least partially for his support on the war in Iraq.

And I think you’d be underestimating UK. UK has pretty much always been almost synonymous with US when it comes to these things. They may as well be one country.

Um no, we didn't go into Vietnam.

rasmasyean

Jan 27, 2010, 05:50 AM

Bah...who cares about that Blair dude. He might as well be a fall guy.

All we care about is that Iraq GDP might reach 20%, maybe 30% growth. They were already pushing like 15 or so recently.

skunk

Jan 27, 2010, 06:01 AM

All we care about is that Iraq GDP might reach 20%, maybe 30% growth. They were already pushing like 15 or so recently.All you care about, maybe.

Eraserhead

Jan 27, 2010, 06:18 AM

Bah...who cares about that Blair dude. He might as well be a fall guy.

The British won't follow the US again if their leader is the fall guy...

rasmasyean

Jan 27, 2010, 05:53 PM

The British won't follow the US again if their leader is the fall guy...

Bush got some criticism too. Nothing's ever perfect and people always find someone to blame when they are long gone. We don't care about him either since he's history and it doesn't matter. Some people like to cling to the past and exhibit 20-20 hindsight like that's the way THEY would have done it. Ultimately, what matters is the future they set in motion and the end result.

rasmasyean

Feb 17, 2010, 06:51 AM

Houston may have a pretty substancial piece...expected to create a lot of jobs! wohhoo!

With Iraq poised to begin the first major overhaul of its energy sector in decades, Houston stands to benefit in a big way from the multibillion dollar effort to redevelop the country's battered oil fields, a project one analyst described as the greatest opportunity in the oil patch today.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6870600.html