• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Serious Why is there no government action against Chinese Communist Party propaganda on Singaporeans?

Communism not only impoverishes the people economically and monetarily, but more importantly spiritually and morally.

Progress and prosperity, on the other hand, enriches the people physically, spiritually and morally. Our PAP got governance right when they realize that Jobs Jobs Jobs and security are key to running a country well. It also ensured being re-elected continuously for the next 55 years since 1965. Other countries became unstable, descended into civil war or anarchy when they take their eyes off the balls and lost focus on their own country's prosperity to play global power games.
 
Great!!


Requires speculation on my part. Other than that I have no dispute with your statement.


ah... yes they were genuine cases of corruption. But selective prosecution of corruption does not equal justice. There are a great number of crooks still roaming free. Far more than those prosecuted. More likely, those who posed a threat to him were persecuted, not just prosecuted. Those that weren't a threat and paid their tribute are still allowed to go about business as usual. Really nothing ever changes does it?

For me, to a certain extent I love freedom with reason. I see no such thing as long as he is in charge. Put another way, as long as they have a communist foundation, a free and just society will never exist. Rather which leader and his cabal will have the run of the place. With Deng it was a whole lot better, but Xi and Mao are the default option for a country built around Communism.

You can easily take my opinion and copy/paste Putin/Russia or Kim/North Korea. Any communist country. That's only scratching the surface of this crap.

Long term effects of such leadership and the consequent psycho-social environment created are paranoid and selfish people with crab in a bucket mentality to say the least. Again, try inserting Russia or North Korea or Cuba into anything I write.

I'm trying not to write a paper here so I'm going to put the brakes on myself now...
Copy paste for SG can? :thumbsdown:
 
Moslems think that way because in their entire religious history, moslems got rich from plundering and looting other countries' wealth. So they see others through similar lenses and conclude that if their country was rich, it has to be through plunder.

If the US plundered lots of oil, then their citizens should be having very very cheap or free oil. Or the market will be full of excess oil from US trying to unload its plunder of cheap oil. But that hasn't happened in the decades since the first gulf war.
You are just pushing your agenda against Muslim. You should read up on history of oil productions. US had all along been paranoid about OPEC countries controlling oil prices. US became a TOP oil producer only in the last 10 years with discovery of shale oil. Prior to that, 80% of the reason they love meddling in the Middle East was for the oil, the other 20% was to flex its muscles. When US invaded Iraq in 2003, Iraq had 60% of the world known oil reserves. Yanks drooled over the Iraqi oil fields. Not that they had any great success in drawing out the oil since the militants relentlessly bombed the pipeline transporting oil out of the country. Read the following Guardian article.


The real reasons Bush went to war
John Chapman
WMD was the rationale for invading Iraq. But what was really driving the US were fears over oil and the future of the dollar
Tue 27 Jul 2004 19.01 EDT
16 years old

Butler's overall finding of a "group think" failure was pure charity. Absurdities like the 45-minute claim were adopted by high-level officials and ministers because those concerned recognised the substantial
reason for war - oil. WMD provided only the bureaucratic argument: the real reason was that Iraq was swimming in oil.
Some may still believe the eve-of-war contention by Donald Rumsfeld that "We won't take forces and go around the world and try to take other people's oil ... That's not how democracies operate." Maybe others will go along with Blair's post-war contention: "There is no way whatsoever, if oil were the issue, that it would not have been infinitely easier to cut a deal with Saddam."
But senior civil servants are not so naive. On the eve of the Butler report, I attended the 40th anniversary of the Mandarins cricket club. I was taken aside by a knighted civil servant to discuss my contention in a Guardian article earlier this year that Sir Humphrey was no longer independent. I had then attacked the deceits in the WMD report, and this impressive official and I discussed the geopolitical issues of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and US unwillingness to build nuclear power stations and curb petrol consumption, rather than go to war.
Saddam controlled a country at the centre of the Gulf, a region with a quarter of world oil production in 2003, and containing more than 60% of the world's known reserves. With 115bn barrels of oil reserves, and perhaps as much again in the 90% of the country not yet explored, Iraq has capacity second only to Saudi Arabia. The US, in contrast, is the world's largest net importer of oil

p/s: after reading this, thank me, and go educate someone else who only knows US today is the largest oil producer
 
Last edited:
The local Chinese media has been totally infiltrated by CCP propaganda.

Zaobao has an entire website dedicated to hyping up One Belt One Road.

https://beltandroad.zaobao.com/beltandroaden

There are also other tell-tale signs e.g. the tabloid Wanbao often has the entire backpage reporting on trivial news from different parts of China.

it's time to bring back nixion and the communist witch-hunts
 
Actually, I felt something was missing from my earlier replies. It just occurred to me what it is.

The whole god forsaken communist ideology is siren call to unhappy people. By engaging the unhappiest margins of society to revolt and overthrow those above them, they achieve regime change. But what happens after that? What they have created is ultimately a power vacuum created by violence and anarchy. So who can step into said power vacuum created through force and violence except someone more forceful and violent than the revolters themselves? Is it a mere coincidence that every single communist country is run by some autocratic dictator?

Deng brought capitalism only to the markets, but allowed communism to dictate social and political policy. It's only a matter of time until another Mao shows up and now he has. If it's not Xi it will be someone like them. As long as Marxism is alive and well, the populace in those systems might as well be serfs. I find it revolting that China and it's proud history is reduced to swallowing the garbage of this outcast from Judaism.

If you're looking for my point, here it is. As long as communism has a hold on China, the Chinese people will forever be under the boot of unrelenting autocracy. This autocracy forces a subhuman behavior in all the people forced to live in this system. Some people resist it well, others break free of it. But the default is humans living in misery and mistreating other humans for their own gain. The clearest example of this is East and West Germany. While West Germany was flying high from the ashes of WW2, try living with the Stasi in the East.
Communism is obviously not chic, it’s archaic. But China cannot switch over to a different political system overnight without setting itself back by several decades. That was exactly what Reagan+Gorbachev dream duo did to Soviet Union, removing USSR from superpower status and relegating it to mafia gangland. It is not going to be like the fall of Berlin Wall... can’t compare, there is nothing in East Germany. In contrast, China has a population 4x more than US. It has massive economic output. Massive trade. Massive technologies. No leader in China will follow the example of Gorbachev. In Chinese it is call 千古罪人,nobody wants to be the person. It has to transform gradually. Already economically China has taken a big step embracing capitalism. Politically it will take longer, perhaps when the remnants of the descendants of the old Guards pass away. If it takes 4 decades for Singapore to even smell democracy, what more China. When the newer and younger generation slowly holds power across all areas, China is likely to transform into a system they favour. It could be Westminster style democracy, it could be a variant... whatever. But not for the world to change its regime and install a pro America puppet.
 
Communism is obviously not chic, it’s archaic. But China cannot switch over to a different political system overnight without setting itself back by several decades. That was exactly what Reagan+Gorbachev dream duo did to Soviet Union, removing USSR from superpower status and relegating it to mafia gangland. It is not going to be like the fall of Berlin Wall... can’t compare, there is nothing in East Germany. In contrast, China has a population 4x more than US. It has massive economic output. Massive trade. Massive technologies. No leader in China will follow the example of Gorbachev. In Chinese it is call 千古罪人,nobody wants to be the person. It has to transform gradually. Already economically China has taken a big step embracing capitalism. Politically it will take longer, perhaps when the remnants of the descendants of the old Guards pass away. If it takes 4 decades for Singapore to even smell democracy, what more China. When the newer and younger generation slowly holds power across all areas, China is likely to transform into a system they favour. It could be Westminster style democracy, it could be a variant... whatever. But not for the world to change its regime and install a pro America puppet.
shooo CECA shitskin shooo go back to India shooo!
 
The local Chinese media has been totally infiltrated by CCP propaganda.

Zaobao has an entire website dedicated to hyping up One Belt One Road.

https://beltandroad.zaobao.com/beltandroaden

There are also other tell-tale signs e.g. the tabloid Wanbao often has the entire backpage reporting on trivial news from different parts of China.
Blame it on 华校生 who are so curious about China
 
The oil wars: How America's energy obsession wrecked the Middle East

 
Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
By Antonia Juhasz, Special to CNN

1595899973387.png



Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.
It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom's bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.
Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.
From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.


The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access.
Full coverage: The Iraq War, 10 years on

Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.
"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."
For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.


These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does.
Exclusive: Hans Blix on 'terrible mistake' in Iraq
In 2000, Big Oil, including Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell, spent more money to get fellow oilmen Bush and Cheney into office than they had spent on any previous election. Just over a week into Bush's first term, their efforts paid off when the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney, was formed, bringing the administration and the oil companies together to plot our collective energy future. In March, the task force reviewed lists and maps outlining Iraq's entire oil productive capacity.
Planning for a military invasion was soon under way. Bush's first Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, said in 2004, "Already by February (2001), the talk was mostly about logistics. Not the why (to invade Iraq), but the how and how quickly."
In its final report in May 2001 (PDF), the task force argued that Middle Eastern countries should be urged "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment." This is precisely what has been achieved in Iraq.
Here's how they did it.
The State Department Future of Iraq Project's Oil and Energy Working Group met from February 2002 to April 2003 and agreed that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war."
Arwa Damon: Iraq suffocates in cloak of sorrow
The list of the group's members was not made public, but Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum -- who was appointed Iraq's oil minister by the U.S. occupation government in September 2003 -- was part of the group, according to Greg Muttitt, a journalist and author of "Fuel on the Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq." Bahr al-Uloum promptly set about trying to implement the group's objectives.
At the same time, representatives from ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Halliburton, among others, met with Cheney's staff in January 2003 to discuss plans for Iraq's postwar industry. For the next decade, former and current executives of western oil companies acted first as administrators of Iraq's oil ministry and then as "advisers" to the Iraqi government.
Before the invasion, there were just two things standing in the way of Western oil companies operating in Iraq: Saddam Hussein and the nation's legal system. The invasion dealt handily with Hussein. To address the latter problem, some both inside and outside of the Bush administration argued that it should simply change Iraq's oil laws through the U.S.-led coalition government of Iraq, which ran the country from April 2003 to June 2004. Instead the White House waited, choosing to pressure the newly elected Iraqi government to pass new oil legislation itself.

Did Iraq give birth to the Arab Spring?
This Iraq Hydrocarbons Law, partially drafted by the Western oil industry, would lock the nation into private foreign investment under the most corporate-friendly terms. The Bush administration pushed the Iraqi government both publicly and privately to pass the law. And in January 2007, as the ''surge" of 20,000 additional American troops was being finalized, the president set specific benchmarks for the Iraqi government, including the passage of new oil legislation to "promote investment, national unity, and reconciliation."
But due to enormous public opposition and a recalcitrant parliament, the central Iraqi government has failed to pass the Hydrocarbons Law. Usama al-Nujeyfi, a member of the parliamentary energy committee, even quit in protest over the law, saying it would cede too much control to global companies and "ruin the country's future."
In 2008, with the likelihood of the law's passage and the prospect of continued foreign military occupation dimming as elections loomed in the U.S. and Iraq, the oil companies settled on a different track.
Bypassing parliament, the firms started signing contracts that provide all of the access and most of the favorable treatment the Hydrocarbons Law would provide -- and the Bush administration helped draft the model contracts.


Why women are less free after Iraq War
Upon leaving office, Bush and Obama administration officials have even worked for oil companies as advisers on their Iraq endeavors. For example, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad's company, CMX-Gryphon, "provides international oil companies and multinationals with unparalleled access, insight and knowledge on Iraq."
The new contracts lack the security a new legal structure would grant, and Iraqi lawmakers have argued that they run contrary to existing law, which requires government control, operation and ownership of Iraq's oil sector.
But the contracts do achieve the key goal of the Cheney energy task force: all but privatizing the Iraqi oil sector and opening it to private foreign companies.
They also provide exceptionally long contract terms and high ownership stakes and eliminate requirements that Iraq's oil stay in Iraq, that companies invest earnings in the local economy or hire a majority of local workers.
Iraq's oil production has increased by more than 40% in the past five years to 3 million barrels of oil a day (still below the 1979 high of 3.5 million set by Iraq's state-owned companies), but a full 80% of this is being exported out of the country while Iraqis struggle to meet basic energy consumption needs. GDP per capita has increased significantly yet remains among the lowest in the world and well below some of Iraq's other oil-rich neighbors. Basic services such as water and electricity remain luxuries, while 25% of the population lives in poverty.
Share your story of the Iraq War

The promise of new energy-related jobs across the country has yet to materialize. The oil and gas sectors today account directly for less than 2% of total employment, as foreign companies rely instead on imported labor.
In just the last few weeks, more than 1,000 people have protested at ExxonMobil and Russia Lukoil's super-giant West Qurna oil field, demanding jobs and payment for private land that has been lost or damaged by oil operations. The Iraqi military was called in to respond.
Fed up with the firms, a leading coalition of Iraqi civil society groups and trade unions, including oil workers, declared on February 15 that international oil companies have "taken the place of foreign troops in compromising Iraqi sovereignty" and should "set a timetable for withdrawal."
Closer to home, at a protest at Chevron's Houston headquarters in 2010, former U.S. Army Military Intelligence officer Thomas Buonomo, member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, held up a sign that read, "Dear Chevron: Thank you for dishonoring our service" (PDF).
Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with losers: the Iraqi people and all those who spilled and lost blood so that Big Oil could come out ahead.
 
Communism is obviously not chic, it’s archaic. But China cannot switch over to a different political system overnight without setting itself back by several decades. That was exactly what Reagan+Gorbachev dream duo did to Soviet Union, removing USSR from superpower status and relegating it to mafia gangland. It is not going to be like the fall of Berlin Wall... can’t compare, there is nothing in East Germany. In contrast, China has a population 4x more than US. It has massive economic output. Massive trade. Massive technologies. No leader in China will follow the example of Gorbachev. In Chinese it is call 千古罪人,nobody wants to be the person. It has to transform gradually. Already economically China has taken a big step embracing capitalism. Politically it will take longer, perhaps when the remnants of the descendants of the old Guards pass away. If it takes 4 decades for Singapore to even smell democracy, what more China. When the newer and younger generation slowly holds power across all areas, China is likely to transform into a system they favour. It could be Westminster style democracy, it could be a variant... whatever. But not for the world to change its regime and install a pro America puppet.
sorry, chic or archaic is not the point. It is deadly for human and societal well-being. BLM in the US is driven by Marxist fundamentalists.

ah.... it's not going to as far as I can see. If nobody wants to be that person how is it going to transform itself? Somebody has to be that person. With a population 4x, you would think there are 4x greater chances of somebody showing up, wouldn't you?

According to the rest of the world, once they became economically wealthy due to capitalistic markets, they would ditch communism. Window of opportunity was wide open for so many years and what happens in the end? Use it to entrench communism deeper.

Communism is some kind of addictive drug for human societies. Like some of these drugs, it destroys the user and leaves them permanently dependent. Russia is a mafia gangland is right. It either descends into that or an autocratic state. Mob rule or strongman rule. No cure unfortunately.

Like I said, I hope somebody will be that person someday and ditch this drug. Until then, it's a poisoned system. And for goodness sake the Westminster parliamentary system is chock full of crap too.
 
Progress and prosperity, on the other hand, enriches the people physically, spiritually and morally. Our PAP got governance right when they realize that Jobs Jobs Jobs and security are key to running a country well. It also ensured being re-elected continuously for the next 55 years since 1965. Other countries became unstable, descended into civil war or anarchy when they take their eyes off the balls and lost focus on their own country's prosperity to play global power games.
not always. It has to be the appropriate kind of progress and prosperity. Everyone who favours China points only to progress and prosperity. That alone is not enough. There has to be social development as well. But in all fairness to you, jobs, jobs, jobs and security are the foundation of any progress.

I would like to point out @amransan 's experience. He used to live in a kampung. Back then, nobody was racist and everybody helped each other. When he was moved to the HDB, suddenly his life was a great deal different. I don't know exactly what, but it was negative. That's why I'm tagging him so that he can help answer this.
 
The oil wars: How America's energy obsession wrecked the Middle East


Very objective and honest analysis. People who does not think US meddled in Middle East for oil were probably born yesterday
 
sorry, chic or archaic is not the point. It is deadly for human and societal well-being. BLM in the US is driven by Marxist fundamentalists.

ah.... it's not going to as far as I can see. If nobody wants to be that person how is it going to transform itself? Somebody has to be that person. With a population 4x, you would think there are 4x greater chances of somebody showing up, wouldn't you?

According to the rest of the world, once they became economically wealthy due to capitalistic markets, they would ditch communism. Window of opportunity was wide open for so many years and what happens in the end? Use it to entrench communism deeper.

Communism is some kind of addictive drug for human societies. Like some of these drugs, it destroys the user and leaves them permanently dependent. Russia is a mafia gangland is right. It either descends into that or an autocratic state. Mob rule or strongman rule. No cure unfortunately.

Like I said, I hope somebody will be that person someday and ditch this drug. Until then, it's a poisoned system. And for goodness sake the Westminster parliamentary system is chock full of crap too.
And therein lies human conflict. My way vs your way.
 
Why the war in Iraq was fought for Big Oil
By Antonia Juhasz, Special to CNN

View attachment 87528


Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.
It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom's bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.
Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.
From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.


The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access.
Full coverage: The Iraq War, 10 years on

Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top U.S. military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.
"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are."
For the first time in about 30 years, Western oil companies are exploring for and producing oil in Iraq from some of the world's largest oil fields and reaping enormous profit. And while the U.S. has also maintained a fairly consistent level of Iraq oil imports since the invasion, the benefits are not finding their way through Iraq's economy or society.


These outcomes were by design, the result of a decade of U.S. government and oil company pressure. In 1998, Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Today it does.
Exclusive: Hans Blix on 'terrible mistake' in Iraq
In 2000, Big Oil, including Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell, spent more money to get fellow oilmen Bush and Cheney into office than they had spent on any previous election. Just over a week into Bush's first term, their efforts paid off when the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney, was formed, bringing the administration and the oil companies together to plot our collective energy future. In March, the task force reviewed lists and maps outlining Iraq's entire oil productive capacity.
Planning for a military invasion was soon under way. Bush's first Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, said in 2004, "Already by February (2001), the talk was mostly about logistics. Not the why (to invade Iraq), but the how and how quickly."
In its final report in May 2001 (PDF), the task force argued that Middle Eastern countries should be urged "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment." This is precisely what has been achieved in Iraq.
Here's how they did it.
The State Department Future of Iraq Project's Oil and Energy Working Group met from February 2002 to April 2003 and agreed that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war."
Arwa Damon: Iraq suffocates in cloak of sorrow
The list of the group's members was not made public, but Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum -- who was appointed Iraq's oil minister by the U.S. occupation government in September 2003 -- was part of the group, according to Greg Muttitt, a journalist and author of "Fuel on the Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq." Bahr al-Uloum promptly set about trying to implement the group's objectives.
At the same time, representatives from ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Halliburton, among others, met with Cheney's staff in January 2003 to discuss plans for Iraq's postwar industry. For the next decade, former and current executives of western oil companies acted first as administrators of Iraq's oil ministry and then as "advisers" to the Iraqi government.
Before the invasion, there were just two things standing in the way of Western oil companies operating in Iraq: Saddam Hussein and the nation's legal system. The invasion dealt handily with Hussein. To address the latter problem, some both inside and outside of the Bush administration argued that it should simply change Iraq's oil laws through the U.S.-led coalition government of Iraq, which ran the country from April 2003 to June 2004. Instead the White House waited, choosing to pressure the newly elected Iraqi government to pass new oil legislation itself.

Did Iraq give birth to the Arab Spring?
This Iraq Hydrocarbons Law, partially drafted by the Western oil industry, would lock the nation into private foreign investment under the most corporate-friendly terms. The Bush administration pushed the Iraqi government both publicly and privately to pass the law. And in January 2007, as the ''surge" of 20,000 additional American troops was being finalized, the president set specific benchmarks for the Iraqi government, including the passage of new oil legislation to "promote investment, national unity, and reconciliation."
But due to enormous public opposition and a recalcitrant parliament, the central Iraqi government has failed to pass the Hydrocarbons Law. Usama al-Nujeyfi, a member of the parliamentary energy committee, even quit in protest over the law, saying it would cede too much control to global companies and "ruin the country's future."
In 2008, with the likelihood of the law's passage and the prospect of continued foreign military occupation dimming as elections loomed in the U.S. and Iraq, the oil companies settled on a different track.
Bypassing parliament, the firms started signing contracts that provide all of the access and most of the favorable treatment the Hydrocarbons Law would provide -- and the Bush administration helped draft the model contracts.


Why women are less free after Iraq War
Upon leaving office, Bush and Obama administration officials have even worked for oil companies as advisers on their Iraq endeavors. For example, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad's company, CMX-Gryphon, "provides international oil companies and multinationals with unparalleled access, insight and knowledge on Iraq."
The new contracts lack the security a new legal structure would grant, and Iraqi lawmakers have argued that they run contrary to existing law, which requires government control, operation and ownership of Iraq's oil sector.
But the contracts do achieve the key goal of the Cheney energy task force: all but privatizing the Iraqi oil sector and opening it to private foreign companies.
They also provide exceptionally long contract terms and high ownership stakes and eliminate requirements that Iraq's oil stay in Iraq, that companies invest earnings in the local economy or hire a majority of local workers.
Iraq's oil production has increased by more than 40% in the past five years to 3 million barrels of oil a day (still below the 1979 high of 3.5 million set by Iraq's state-owned companies), but a full 80% of this is being exported out of the country while Iraqis struggle to meet basic energy consumption needs. GDP per capita has increased significantly yet remains among the lowest in the world and well below some of Iraq's other oil-rich neighbors. Basic services such as water and electricity remain luxuries, while 25% of the population lives in poverty.
Share your story of the Iraq War

The promise of new energy-related jobs across the country has yet to materialize. The oil and gas sectors today account directly for less than 2% of total employment, as foreign companies rely instead on imported labor.
In just the last few weeks, more than 1,000 people have protested at ExxonMobil and Russia Lukoil's super-giant West Qurna oil field, demanding jobs and payment for private land that has been lost or damaged by oil operations. The Iraqi military was called in to respond.
Fed up with the firms, a leading coalition of Iraqi civil society groups and trade unions, including oil workers, declared on February 15 that international oil companies have "taken the place of foreign troops in compromising Iraqi sovereignty" and should "set a timetable for withdrawal."
Closer to home, at a protest at Chevron's Houston headquarters in 2010, former U.S. Army Military Intelligence officer Thomas Buonomo, member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, held up a sign that read, "Dear Chevron: Thank you for dishonoring our service" (PDF).
Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with losers: the Iraqi people and all those who spilled and lost blood so that Big Oil could come out ahead.
What I do not understand is how the entire world can accept this gross violation of humanity. For the atrocities US committed, the nation deserves to be subjected to long term threat of terrorist Attack. America created these terrorists. You can never eliminate them all. They might lay low for a while but you will never know when they strike. The world is no longer a safe place because of these crimes US committed.
 
Very objective and honest analysis. People who does not think US meddled in Middle East for oil were probably born yesterday

By pegging US$ to oil. Even my 10yr old nephew know the motives for invasion of ME.
 
What I do not understand is how the entire world can accept this gross violation of humanity. For the atrocities US committed, the nation deserves to be subjected to long term threat of terrorist Attack. America created these terrorists. You can never eliminate them all. They might lay low for a while but you will never know when they strike. The world is no longer a safe place because of these crimes US committed.

US dont give two hoots to UN or even UNSC. US just invaded Iraq when no green lights were given. US will get wat they want thru deceits n lies if it warrant.
 
Very objective and honest analysis. People who does not think US meddled in Middle East for oil were probably born yesterday
Shoo CECA indian fake degree Shooo. US has most oil reserve in world u know shit shooo!
 
Back
Top