 | A primer on reserve growth - Part 3 of 3 | The Oil Drum | The Union of Concerned Scientists Report on XOM: How Does It All Fit In? |  |
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
| A primer on reserve growth - Part 3 of 3 | The Oil Drum | The Union of Concerned Scientists Report on XOM: How Does It All Fit In? | |
k Nation (Jim Kunstler)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Jerome, 1) The occupier, according to Int’l law, does not have the right to ‘write laws’, or not of that type anyway, (this raises the question of puppet Gvmts. etc. as well), you rightly call it the ‘biggest scandal’ and ‘the biggest breach of Iraqi sovereignity’. The US had no right, for ex. to re-write the Iraqi constitution under the CPA, care of Booted Lord Bremer. The reason for those Int’l rules are obvious - one of the reasons is to prevent civil war, which protects the occupier as well. Secondly, perhaps not directly in your piece, but certainly in the Int’l press, as far as I can gather, it is implied, that Iraqis themselves would not agree to this law. Or at least a large faction would not. (They might be misguided, that is another topic.) If put to a popular vote, the answer would be NO, with a good score, more than 60 % I am guessing. In short, legally speaking, insofar as such a murky situation can be figured, the law is more than shaky; pragmatically speaking, it isn’t popular enough to override officialdom. This matters greatly, as many Iraqis are already fighting both the occupier and their ‘own’ Gvmt, whom they see together as illegitimate puppets, foreignors, profiteers, collaborators, etc.
2) You make the point that conditions of stability at present in Iraq are not fulfilled for long term investment, right - because, you say, there is no legitimate Gvmt. Presumably if there was one, they could enforce and uphold the law. There will be no legit. Gvmt. while US forces are in Iraq, you state, and that might very well be so.
Clearly, points 1 and 2 are related. If the Gvmt. was legit, it could vote laws, and there would be no (or less, or different) civil strife...but it isn’t so it can’t but does anyway....
Where is the conclusion? What is the point of the law if it useless on the ground to oil companies and Iraqis and the occupiers and the Iraqi Gvmt.? Is one to say it is incompetent meddling, poor strategy, folly, or whatever, on the part of the US, as you seem to say? That in the best of worlds this law would be reasonable but unfortunately reason has flown out the window? Your post about Russia and Putin was really great, this one seems to lack an ending to me, I’m curious and not being gratiously critical.
It's a rational question. I have no idea what they are trying to achieve. Surely the US occupation authority knows full well that no oil major will take advantage of this "opportunity", and that it's a PR disaster, but we know that facts have never stopped this administration before. Maybe they actually believe it will work.
Or maybe they are just throwing oil on the fire, for some unknown reasons (justification to escalate?). I don't know. I am sorry for the unsatisfactory ending of my post, it only reflects my own inability to understand what rational goal this "law" achieves.
Surely the US occupation authority knows full well that no oil major will take advantage of this "opportunity"
Worst case hypothesis: a fly-by-night "western" oil company will be used to plunder Iraqui oil to exhaustion while the whole country will be kept "struggling for democracy".
> plunder Iraqui (sic) oil to exhaustion
Are you aware of the timescale involved? As a multiple of, say, the US electoral cycle? Clearly not...
Jerome: Your lead comment (the "lefty" blogosphere) is hilarious. Who is paying for this boondoggle? Wall Street? The free market? Large oil companies? No. The taxpayer. The whole Iraq adventure is socialism at its worst, the transfer of incredible wealth from the taxpayer to vested interests.
Yes Jerome it is very opaque - as you imply maybe wish fulfillment, just tramping on with what is considered reasonable and advantageous for many (not just oil Cos.) or just 'right', whatever that may be. Maybe they think of it as a kind of stab at pre-emption, it won't work now, but sets the tone or the goals for the future, lays a plan that others must follow.
It ain't realistic that is for sure. Anyway I haven't a clue obviously. But 'pacification' is, and always has been, a US aim - one can imagine, looking back to 2003, a happy Iraq with MacDos, a free art/tv scene, women in power, children going to cheerful clinics, cured of horrid ills, electricity all over Baghdad, and exports...now there... what? Dates? Pistachios? But certainly an efficient oil industry, bringing in revenues for 'all' Iraqis.
I guess Black Gold is a curse.
I've also been confused by the contradictory nature of the Bush administration - and lately found some light on this - by reading Irving Kristol (the intellectual father of neo-conservatism) Kristol's ideas are contradictory.
http://amnation.com/vfr/archives/001679.htm
Politicians will use theories of the intellectual community as the basis for their decisions and policy. The theory-to-politics follows "GIGO" garbage in garbage out.