I was able to watch some of the Canadian PM speaking in the House of Commons yesterday and it seemed there was pretty angry sentiment against war. Some reps wanted Cretien to tell Bush directly that they wouldn't support his "illegal war" and others were upset that the ships in the Gulf weren't being brought out. It was pretty interesting. I was also surprised about how easily they talked about corruption. Some medical department giving contracts to a car company or something. I wish our government forced the President to show up and take questions like that.
This is a very dumb post, imo. US oil interests in Iraq are comparatively very low relative to France adn Russia as I've already pointed out. Further, it has been said time and time again that Iraqi oil reserves will revert to the new Iraqi regime. Will some US companies benefit? Undoubtedly. But to say US oil interests is the cause for the war is r****ded.
I tried to be as clear as I could, I don't have all day to make my posts perfect particularly when individuals are looking for the slightest lean toward the left or right. 1. A Man who beats his kids is evil, a man who puts people in a shredder is not far from the devil himself. 2. I support my friends, my fellow Texans, all the troops from all the nations that are supporting our way of life. 3. By saying war is evil does not mean that it is not a necessity. Unfortunately war must be handled in a mannner that leaves no doubt who is the victor. There are many ways to put this, but sometimes its better to have 10,000 innocent people die, so that 2 million will be able to survive and prosper. That sounds callous, but that is how war works. 4. If you fight a limited war you will have to go back and fight the same war again. This is what we are doing in the gulf now and what we are dealing with in North Korea. 5. I feel terrible for solders who have to go over to Iraq and witness things like the "Highway" that will change your outlook on life.
I said US national interests in an oil rich area of the world. Bush Sr himself is on record as saying that oil is partly the reason why we went to war to "liberate" Kuwait. Is he r****ded or just you?
I claimed your post was r****ded, not Bush Sr or even you for that matter. You claim the liberation of Iraqis is a front for the "real" reason we are going to war, US national interest in the oil rich area of the world, i.e. our oil interests. I claim that US national interests, i.e., oil, in the area is comparatively less than most people know about, although said interests may benefit from a war. There will be an economic impact of any war and to not take this into account when deciding whether or not to go to war could be disastorous.
I agree and this is what I resent. Real reasons are being exploited to gain support. I like to think honesty about the reasons we are going to war would work fine. If it wouldn't work, then perhaps the war position should isn't solid enough to begin with.
I don't see how you don't see that enforcing resolutions that started with the Gulf War which was fought partly because of oil doesn't make this action partly because of oil. That seems like a pretty straight line. The US economy has the most to gain from lower oil prices as we consume like half of the world's oil. Also, US corporations have their grubby hands out and the Bush Administration decides who gets the contracts to rebuild Iraq. If the French and Russians were so interested in oil they should have joined the effort to divy up the pie since they knew the US was going to war regardless. So when you say France and Russia have huge interests it looks pretty foolish of them to go all or nothing when they knew it was going to be nothing if the US acted. Companies Selected to Bid on Iraq Reconstruction Initial $900 Million Contract Would Pay for Rebuilding of Roads, Bridges and Other Infrastructure http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7939-2003Mar10.html By Peter Slevin and Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, March 11, 2003; Page A13 The Bush administration, preparing what would be the most ambitious U.S. rebuilding project since the aftermath of World War II, expects in coming days to award a construction contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars to begin remaking Iraq, U.S. officials said yesterday. The huge umbrella contract, the first to be awarded, would pay for construction and repairs to roads and bridges, as well as schools, hospitals and mosques, officials said. Other large deals are under negotiation to jump-start a reconstruction effort that would follow an overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. A few U.S. construction giants -- including the Bechtel Group Inc., Halliburton Co. and Fluor Corp. -- were invited to bid for the work on an emergency basis. Analysts said the companies hope to win the contract and position themselves for such future projects as the repair and development of the country's oil industry. U.S. authorities, wary of a potential backlash to a U.S.-led invasion and military occupation, hope to persuade Iraqis, by showing fast results, that the extraordinary attempt to overhaul Iraq merits their support. They believe they can win hearts and minds by feeding hungry Iraqis, delivering clean water and helping to pay teachers and health workers while a new government is being constructed. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is seeking companies to handle such projects as renovating the country's largest airports, resuscitating electrical grids and printing textbooks. The administration will seek from Congress the billions of dollars necessary for the initial military and civilian postwar effort if the White House challenges Iraq with force. U.S. diplomats have been seeking financial commitments from other countries. Planners also hope Iraqi oil revenue can help pay for reconstruction. The initial construction contract could be as large as $900 million, U.S. officials have said. One planner called the number a ceiling and predicted the actual amount of the umbrella contract would be lower. "The United States is probably going to have to pick up the bulk of what's going to happen in reconstruction, at least at the outset," said Bathsheba Crocker, co-author of a report on post-Hussein Iraq at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "It's acknowledged even by them that it's going to be a drop in the bucket compared to what the overall costs will be." To speed the project, USAID invoked special authority to solicit bids from selected companies, which include the Louis Berger Group Inc., a significant U.S. contractor in Afghanistan. The move bypassed the usual rules that would have permitted a wider array of companies to seek the contract, first reported by Time magazine and the Wall Street Journal. Vice President Cheney spent five years as chief executive of one competitor, Houston-based energy services company Halliburton. The Pentagon announced Thursday that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root is developing a plan under an existing contract to fight Iraqi oil well fires. The "urgent circumstances and the unique nature of this work" justify the procedures, said USAID spokeswoman Ellen Yount. Officials said the winner is certain to farm out work to other companies inside and outside Iraq. Construction industry executives said the firms are competing fiercely in part because they believe it could provide an inside track to postwar business opportunities. A significant prize: oil industry contracts. "It's a sensitive topic, because we still haven't gone to war, but these companies are really in a position to win something out of this geopolitical situation," an industry executive said. It remains unclear whether Iraqis, Americans or an international consortium will manage the oil industry during an early post-conflict period. Steven L. Schooner, a George Washington University law professor, said many billions of dollars are at stake. He estimated that $900 million would barely last six months given the scope of the projects the administration has mapped out. "The most sophisticated firms that come in first and establish goodwill with the locals obviously will reap huge benefits down the road," Schooner said. "These are going to become brand names in Iraq. That's huge." Bechtel spokesman Jonathan Marshall said, "We hope for a peaceful settlement in Iraq, but if there is a role for U.S. companies in helping to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, Bechtel would have the skills and would be well-suited for such a job." The Americans have been working with the U.N. World Food Program and other U.N. agencies to manage Iraq's food distribution network and the care of displaced Iraqis. USAID has established loose targets for an immediate post-conflict period and the following 18 months, emphasizing that it expects the United States to have international help in fulfilling the goals. On electricity, for example, USAID foresees the installation of 550 diesel generators within 60 days and the restoration of power to 75 percent of the 1991 level within 18 months. Officials caution that such plans are heavily contingent on the amount of wartime damage. On education, USAID envisions the repair of 3,000 schools and the delivery of supplies to 12,500 schools. By that point, teacher training would be underway and U.S. universities would be providing expertise. By 18 months, if the targets are met, basic health services would be available to all Iraqis and local government would be financially self-supporting, according to USAID predictions.
1. I think its obvious i'm not supporting Saddam's actions through his run of the government or military. Basically, i'm saying I wish there was another way but there isn't and this conflict could be much more intense than 1991. I think he'll do whatever he can oil fires, chemical/ bio weapons, Somalia street fighting with human shields. 2. North Korea is a much more intense situation, remember we fought to a draw with them before without nukes. To compare N. Korea's military might with Iraq's is not serious. N. Korea can legitimately take over the Korean Peninsula in a matter of days. MacAuther suggested the best way to create a DMZ between the North and South would be to drop hundreds of Thermo Nukes to create a radioactive no-mans land (true story). 3. I agree there is not an easy way to deal with an enemy who can be described in black and white terms, but must be fought completely in the grey. I hope our current administration has a well thought plan for the next 20 years, a stratagy that can change completely in a day if necessary. Trader_Jorge read, listen, understand.
I guess our economy will reach record heights in 2-3 years from now. Then after 4 years of highs, we'll go into a recession and economic slowdown. I guess North Korea would be next. After reading this article, assuming it is true, I am disgusted. It made my stomach churn. I'm probably riding the left as much anyone can be, but there are limits. Forget all the politics, these savages must be brought to justice. I hope every one of our soldiers comes out of there unscathed.
Hell, commence freezing over. Frogs, unfurl your wings. Saddam, step down peacefully. Mo, get twelve rebounds. good one, KingCheetah.
Timing, The French and Russians have a huge stake in leaving Iraq as-is. They are owed a lot of money by the current regime and they stand to lose a lot if the US goes to war, that is a big reason why they didn't support the US. Oil is as much, actually more, of a motivation for them than for the US. It isn't as simple as them just jumping in and "getting a piece of the pie". As far as your article, what else are we supposed to do? Fight the war and just let everything lie there in smoldering ruins? Or give the contracts for rebuilding to Australia? I mean, Halliburton has ties to Cheney. However, it is also the world's best oil firefighting company. While it may appear strange for the contract to be given to Halliburton because Cheney is in office, it actually makes sense.
First, you initially claimed that protecting Iraqi civilizians human rights was a front for our real interests, essentially the oil, which I said was retarted. Now it's only partly because of oil. I don't disagree with that or find it r****ded. Second, I don't think you've completely thought through the oil price-US economy relationship. While lower oil prices will help us as consumers, how does this help the exploration and production companies which dominate the energy industry (ExxonMobile, El Paso, Devon, etc.). They sell oil&gas and, as such, hedging aside, are affected negatively by decreases in oil prices, as they have to sell for less. It's a double-edged sword. Not to mention how oil&gas prices effect these companies abilities to raise money in the public markets for capital expenditures, etc. Third, perhaps France and Russia have gone all or nothing because they didn't think America would go to war without some sort of UN support. Certainly, that argument could have been made as recently as a month ago. Finally, the article posted points out how American companies might benefit, but who else is going to rebuild roads, provide the necessary energy services to get fileds operating effectively for the Iraqi's people use. Maybe we should just farm out all those contracts to France. America is fighting this war. Not to mention the fact that companies like Halliburton (which Cheney did work for) are experienced in these situations. Brown & Root/Halliburton repaired damaged buildings and wells effectively after the first Gulf War. Further, the American government will be the one subsidizing these contracts. So while our industries may benefit, our government budget situation doesn't. Personally, I think Bush has screwed up the situation massively. But I certainly don't think the only reason, as you initially implied, or even a major reason, that America is going to war is because it may have a positive economic effect on some of the countries' industrial sectors. IMO, it is a minor thought that Bush Jr. & Co. are taking into account along with what they truly believe is a growing and unignorable threat to American safety.
All the logic is mesmerizing. If this is all about French and Russian monetary interests then what is the logic of opposing a certain war and not getting anything? The logical move is to oppose it and then fall in at the last moment. The logical move is to make sure French and Russian corporations are in line along with US corporations. If the French and Russians are so about their financial interests then they're going about it pretty incompetently but it's easier for Americans to believe those opposing war have selfish motives and that the US doesn't. The US just wants to liberate those poor Iraqis and those evil Frenchies just want oil contracts. As for the article, it shows our finandical interests.
Jeez, Timing, did you even read what I said? I said BOTH the US and France/Russia have oil interests as a big part of what is occurring. The logic in opposing the war is that it saves two of the largest companies in those countries from probable ruin. They derive a lot of income from Iraq right now, and if you have money (oil) flowing in then why would you support a war that would disrupt that? <-- please answer this question! Right now, France has a big piece of the pie without a war, while if there is a war they get a smaller piece of a damaged pie that they have to re-bake. Why not oppose the war? If you had a chance to see the news today, you'll also notice that France today announced that they would "fall in" if chem weapons are used. Hmmmm...doesn't that follow the logical move that you talk about? When did I say the US govt had pure motives? Also, please don't mischaracterize my assertions. I am not anti-French and I don't think anyone's motives in this war are totally pure or totally impure.
Originally posted by JayZ750 First, you initially claimed that protecting Iraqi civilizians human rights was a front for our real interests, essentially the oil, which I said was retarted. Now it's only partly because of oil. I don't disagree with that or find it r****ded. I said it was partly because of oil in my original statement. I added people in this administration settling old scores in that same sentence and I'll add even further Bush's unsubstantiated assertion that Iraq is an immediate threat to the American people. Second, I don't think you've completely thought through the oil price-US economy relationship. While lower oil prices will help us as consumers, how does this help the exploration and production companies which dominate the energy industry (ExxonMobile, El Paso, Devon, etc.). They sell oil&gas and, as such, hedging aside, are affected negatively by decreases in oil prices, as they have to sell for less. It's a double-edged sword. Not to mention how oil&gas prices effect these companies abilities to raise money in the public markets for capital expenditures, etc. I don't have the exact numbers but for every cent that gas prices go up it takes like $2billion out of the US economy. That's not even talking about heating oil, electricity, etc. The economy is in shambles and cheap oil could help revive it. I think Iraq's food for oil program only uses 5% of their oil production capabilities. Once those sanctions are lifted the oil will flow like the Mississippi. Third, perhaps France and Russia have gone all or nothing because they didn't think America would go to war without some sort of UN support. Certainly, that argument could have been made as recently as a month ago. I doubt that. In fact I've read that France assured Colin Powell prior to 1441 that they were committed to enforcement. That's one reason Bush etc is so pissed I believe, they were lied to by the French. Once they passed 1441 I don't think it would have been much of a stretch to see that Bush could try to use that as authorizing war. Finally, the article posted points out how American companies might benefit, but who else is going to rebuild roads, provide the necessary energy services to get fileds operating effectively for the Iraqi's people use. Maybe we should just farm out all those contracts to France. America is fighting this war. Not to mention the fact that companies like Halliburton (which Cheney did work for) are experienced in these situations. Brown & Root/Halliburton repaired damaged buildings and wells effectively after the first Gulf War. Further, the American government will be the one subsidizing these contracts. So while our industries may benefit, our government budget situation doesn't. How is this any different from talking about French and Russian interests? You can paint it however you want, it's the same thing. Personally, I think Bush has screwed up the situation massively. But I certainly don't think the only reason, as you initially implied, or even a major reason, that America is going to war is because it may have a positive economic effect on some of the countries' industrial sectors. IMO, it is a minor thought that Bush Jr. & Co. are taking into account along with what they truly believe is a growing and unignorable threat to American safety. Well I disagree, I think it's pretty evident that if there wasn't any oil in the area we wouldn't even be thinking twice about invading Iraq because then they'd be little different from any other dictator with WMD.
This is what you said: The liberation of Iraqis is obviously a front for the real reasons for war which are US national interests in an oil rich area of the world and the settling of old scores by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc. Whenever Bush gets into trouble with reasons for war, enforcing irrelevant resolutions passed by an irrelevant body, then he falls back to liberating the people of Iraq. Liberation is popular with Americans because we like to think of ourselves as promoting Democracy and freedom even when we simultaneously support tyrants and murderers. It's unfortunate that Americans buy into that dishonest and completely inconsistent argument. Nowhere does it mention partly. It simply sounds as if you believe every move the American government makes is eitehr based on (a) our own economic interests or (b) our political leaders personal grudges. And then we resort to proclaiming human rights to cover those real motives up. I still contend that this is r****ded. Why is this so America-centric? EVERY country will benefit from a consumer standpoint from decline in oil prices. Only specific companies from specific countries, however, will benefit from buying rights into Iraq fields in order to produce the reserves that are there. I can't predict the future, but post the first Gulf War, these contracts were not rewarded to American firms (but rather French and Russian ones as mentioned), and I presume based of the governments repeated statements that the oil will be in the hands of the new Iraqi regime, it will be up to them to decide how much they can get for what, from whom, etc. It seems to me that the French were trying to postpone war as strongly as possible for mainly economic purposes. They continued to hope that war wouldn't happen without full UN support. Now that it has been "declared", it's not suprising that they are starting to back of their stance, is it? It's not the same. France and Russia won't be sending their troops to battle and they won't be subsidizing $900 million in possible costs to rebuild from their own government budgets, as far as I know. Nevertheless, I concede that there are similarities and I don't feel that there is anythign wrong, per se, with a country taking its economic interests into consideration. I do, however, think that it is a much stronger influence on France than it is on the US, personally. Maybe you're right but I disagree. At the very least, I don't think it is evident at all if that is the case. I personally believe that oil aside, Iraq, due to its unique position in the Middle East as a possible supplier of WMD to terrorists and as a possible user itself makes it the biggest threat out there currently right now, so big that something needs to be done about it. Diplomacy was tried for X years to absolutely zero success. I believe something different should be tried. I don't believe Bush did a good enough job gathering support for the war, though, and we certainly acted way too much like the big bad wolf.
It's all one reporters words versus another, unless you're on the inside, but for what its worth: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles2/Marquardt_Franco-German-Resistance.htm When the Bush administration took office, international diplomacy received an injection of power politics. Beginning with the declaration that North Korea, Iran and Iraq comprised an "axis of evil," and culminating in the current aggression toward Baghdad, Washington has relied on the threat of military and economic force in order to further its perceived national interests and geopolitical goals. While in the past Washington has been able to rely on persuasion or "soft force" as an effective tool of international diplomacy, the Bush administration's unilateralist policy has failed to convince former allies of the global benefits of current U.S. geopolitical strategy in the Middle East. President Bush alluded to this forceful approach in his recent State of the Union Address when he affirmed that "the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others." France and Germany, once bulwarks of U.S. foreign policy, have both broken away from their traditional supporting roles and are directly challenging Washington's aspirations of removing Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq. Buoyed by support from Russia and China, the intensifying Franco-German alliance has withstood U.S. economic pressure and sharp criticism by Bush administration officials who have labeled France and Germany as being part of "old Europe," following "shameful" policies which risk France and Germany's "diplomatic isolation." In addition to the current U.S. administration, Capitol Hill is also fused with anger as members of the U.S. Congress are calling for withdrawal of U.S. troops stationed in Germany, along with trade sanctions on French imports such as water and wine. As U.S. Representative Peter T. King of New York recently said, "Anything we can do to hurt [France and Germany] without hurting us, I support." Despite economic pressure from the United States, France and Germany have remained steadfast against the notion of a preemptive strike on Iraq. Instead of supporting current U.S. plans, Paris and Berlin have called for a boost in the number of U.N. monitoring teams working inside Iraq. Washington responded, calling the proposal "useless." The motivations for French, German and Russian refusal to participate in Washington's Middle East policy are two-fold: economic concerns and the prevention of an unrestrained U.S. foreign policy. Both Russia and France have economic stakes in the current Iraqi government. Russia, for example, has been granted tremendous oil contracts. LUKoil, the second largest Russian oil firm, has signed a multi-billion dollar oil production deal with Saddam Hussein, giving it a majority stake in West Qurna, a gigantic Iraqi oil field holding 11 billion barrels of oil. TotalFinaElf, the French oil giant, was granted a deal giving it rights to Iraq's largest oil field, the Majnoon, affording the company a 15 percent stake in Iraq's 112 billion barrels of oil reserves. With the removal of Saddam Hussein by the United States, LUKoil and TotalFinaElf would most certainly lose some of their potential profits as the new Iraqi government, directly supported by the United States, would possibly renege or at least forcibly renegotiate oil contracts established under Saddam's regime. Aside from economic concerns, the main factor motivating France, Germany and Russia is their angst toward U.S. power politics perpetuated through the Bush administration's unilateralist approach to foreign policy and the U.S.' attempt to project power into the Middle East. Significantly, these three powers are no longer persuaded that U.S. national interests are synonymous with their own. With Washington now warning that neither the U.N. nor NATO will block their national strategy, France, Germany and Russia have become diplomatically hostile toward what they perceive to be growing U.S. nationalism. Besides these three powers, smaller nations are also concerned over U.S. nationalist foreign policy, especially Middle Eastern states who fear that the Bush administration is trying to reshape the Middle East in a form that will benefit the United States. Washington has publicly expressed its disdain for the governments of Iran, Libya, Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia, causing these nations to react cautiously to any form of increased U.S. presence in the region. Many of these Middle Eastern autocratic governments are also having to take into account their own civilian populations that are overwhelmingly against not only a U.S. invasion of Iraq but of any cooperation between their government and the United States. Middle Eastern rulers are beginning to fear Islamic revolution, as Islamist groups in the Middle East have gained credibility in the eyes of civilians who are starting to believe that aggressive U.S. "imperialism" is threatening their way of life and needs to be repelled. These factors are but only some of the most important that combine to explain why there is so much resistance to U.S. foreign policy. Both France and Germany, much closer allies to the United States than Russia and China, perceive a unilateralist United States, free from the restrictions of international restraining organizations such as the United Nations and NATO, to be a direct threat to their own national interests. This time around, Paris and Berlin may not back down. http://foi.missouri.edu/usenergypolicies/itsnotallaboutoil.html BusinessWeek Online January 30, 2003. When tens of thousands of protesters opposed to a U.S. war in Iraq descended on Washington on Jan. 18, you could see the placards everywhere: "No U.S. Blood for Oil." Convinced that a war would be nothing more than a thinly veiled resource grab instigated by Big Oil, activists vow to follow up on Feb. 4 by staging protests at gas stations across the country. Fringe thinking? Hardly. The suspicion that George W. Bush's showdown with Saddam Hussein is "all about oil" isn't just a fixation of the American left. It's gaining adherents among the European intelligentsia and in the Arab world. "Washington says it wants to eliminate any threat of interruption of the flow of oil, to ensure that it will be accessible to U.S. oil companies," said British Labor Party politician Alice Mahon on Jan. 22. "A different and more compliant government in Iraq would make that possible." "VITAL REGION." Naturally, the Bush Administration and U.S. oil companies bristle at that charge. In his Jan. 28 State of the Union address, the President called Saddam "a brutal dictator" and insisted that the Iraqi leader and his weapons of mass destruction "will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the U.S." Adds an American oil-industry source: "I would be shocked if any industry executive is wringing his hands in glee" over the impending conflict. In the short term, many oil companies and producers could in fact be hurt by a U.S. victory. If the U.S. gets more oil [from Iraq], that would drive the price down, says the industry exec. Still, when Bush says "vital region," he's alluding to the obvious: While the war with Saddam is not driven by a U.S. lust for Iraq's oil fields -- second only to Saudi Arabia's in terms of proven reserves -- he's not about to let a vicious strongman with ambitions to be another Nasser-style, pan-Arab nationalist control the crucial area, either. What's more, when U.S. oil execs profess dismay over the drop in world crude prices that could follow American seizure of Iraqi fields, they're telling only part of the story. In the long term, assuring a larger and more stable supply outside of Saudi Arabian domination could benefit both the U.S. and world economy. And modernizing the decrepit Iraqi oil industry will be a huge opportunity. Just making Iraqi facilities capable of pumping oil at 1990 levels could cost $5 billion, says a study by the Council on Foreign Relations and James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. Doubling capacity from the current 2.8 million barrels a day might cost $40 billion. HIGH ANXIETY. Since the U.S. military would control Iraq's oil and gas deposits for some time, U.S. companies could be in line for a lucrative slice of that business. They may snag some drilling rights, too. "The oil-service industry is pretty much American-dominated," says an exec at one U.S. company. That means outfits such as Halliburton and Baker Hughes, as well as construction giant Bechtel Group, could feel just as victorious as the U.S. Special Forces troops. The mere prospect of a U.S. presence in the region troubles the French and Russians -- both key to the U.N. drive to head off war. The French have long been a major player in developing Iraqi fields. And the Russians, via companies such as Lukoil, are angling for a piece of the action. They, too, are worried about anything that causes crude-oil prices to fall. The war "is totally about oil," says a top executive at France's TotalFinaElf. Adds Simon G. Kukes, chief executive of Russia's Tyumen Oil: "I don't see much room for Russian oil companies" in postwar Iraq. The anxiety is high because Iraq's oil treasure is vast. Only 15 of its 74 discovered oil fields have been developed, and just 125 of the 526 known oil deposits have been drilled, according to CFR-Baker. Iraq is now bringing in only $16 billion annually from oil sales -- paltry by OPEC standards. And its deteriorating infrastructure means that output is dropping by about 100,000 barrels over each successive year. BEARISH FLIP. That picture could change dramatically if the U.S. military staves off Iraqi sabotage and puts in place a new regime committed to hurry-up modernization. If Iraq opens its oil taps, that would be a powerful psychological force for lower oil prices worldwide. "The whole market will flip from bullish to bearish," says Fareed Mohamedi, chief economist at PFC Energy in Washington. What about tapping some of that oil to pay for the war? According to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, the U.S. won't fund its military campaign from Iraqi oil revenues, but it does reserves the right to use some of Iraq's black gold for reconstruction. "The oil of Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people," Powell said on Jan. 21. "It will not be exploited." So who will reap the big bucks from getting Saddam's oil fields back on track? At this point, Iraq is believed to have contracts worth about $38 billion pending with such companies as Italy's ENI, Royal Dutch/Shell, Australia's BHP, TotalFinaElf, and Russian giant Lukoil. Sanctions have precluded American companies from doing business in Iraq, and foreign concerns are likely to continue to exploit their long-standing links. Yet the sanctions have also stalled efforts by non-U.S. companies to complete their deals and start development. EXACTING REVENGE? France is by far the biggest player. The giant TotalFinaElf now has development rights to roughly 25% of total Iraqi reserves. In theory, the country's long relationship with Iraq's oil technocrats could put French outfits in good shape for more deals after any war. But at the moment, many French industry officials remain convinced that the Americans will exact revenge if France fails to fully support the war effort. While Russian contracts may be honored, "ours won't be," predicts a top executive of TotalFinaElf. That's why some French observers insist that when push comes to shove in the U.N., France will march in step -- mainly to protect its oil stakes. Russia is in a more delicate position. Iraq owes Moscow $8 billion in Soviet-era debt. In 1997, Lukoil signed a $3.5 billion, 23-year deal to revive Iraq's al-Qurnah field, which has 7.8 billion barrels of proven reserves. But the accord was put on ice since President Vladimir V. Putin's support for the U.S.-led sanctions drive. Now Lukoil is sending a high-level delegation in February to heal the breach -- the second such diplomatic overture in recent weeks. Lukoil President Vagit Alekperov claims to have Kremlin assurances that his interests will be protected in a post-Saddam regime. That has many industry observers convinced that an informal accord with Washington is in place, one that would restore Lukoil's stake in Iraq. UNCERTAIN IMPACT. For American energy companies, smarting from the charge that former oil execs George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney are spearheading their interests, the subject of economic gain from an Iraqi intervention is extremely sensitive. U.S. oil executives queried by BusinessWeek would not speak on the record. Privately, industry sources familiar with discussions with the Administration say the talks focused on nitty-gritty issues such as snuffing out oil fires Saddam's forces may set. And the industry remains torn on what impact war in Iraq will have on its fortunes. In the short term, Iraqi infrastructure rebuilding projects might be sweet deals. Yet over the long haul, a flood of Iraqi oil could depress world prices. Bottom line in the Oil Patch: Keep your lip zipped, hope George W. is right, and go along for the ride.
I don't know whether the U.S or France and Russia have more oil interests or how much that factored into either of their stances on military action. I do have one significant question. Why does the U.S. get to decide who gets the contracts? Aren't we freeing Iraq to give it to the Iraqis? Shouldn't the new democratic Iraq get to decide who gets what contracts? Maybe that was three questions. This kind of talk is what might lead some to believe it's an imperialistic endeavor.
