What happens to oil fields after the war?

[MissEve]

How does this work? Someone splain it to me :)

[Mike AI]

Actually Ms. Eve I think they are going to be sold on Ebay.


They are property of the Iraqis. We will probably rebuild the infrastructure of the wells, the pumping, and delivery - as well as other parts of the country. The United States will use the oil revenue to pay for this. Rumsfield already said the US Taxpayer will not be picking up the bill.

From their an eventual Iraqi REpublic will eventually take over and administrate it. I would image in the oil field revenues will be broken up to each of the states inside Iraq for each of the seperate groups - Sunnis, Kurds, Shiates, etc... that way each group does not feel left out, so they want to go to war with the other group.

Will it be difficult? VERY... might it fail? Yep. Do we have any other choices? Nope, everything else has failed in the past...

[Almighty Colin]

The US and UK have said that Iraqi oil will be held "in trust". Blair has said that maybe the UN could administer the oil-for-food program where Iraqi oil is traded for food and medicine. Will France veto?

The idea that there could be a civilian administrator chosen by the UN has been thrown around.

[Rox]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Mar 27 2003, 02:17 PM
I would image in the oil field revenues will be broken up to each of the states inside Iraq for each of the seperate groups - Sunnis, Kurds, Shiates, etc... that way each group does not feel left out, so they want to go to war with the other group.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Cuz y'know, sharing the oil fields and revenue will put an end to the... oh... 10,000 years or so of tribal/religious warfare that defines the Arab culture.

This I've gotta see!

[Mike AI]

Rox, its worth trying. If not, one group will doinate the others and take all the money from oil. I really do not care if that happens, as long as the regime does not make weapons of mass destruction, support terrorism or anything else.

something I read, which sums up my posistion:

It's important to understand that democracy, and the ability choose one's leaders, is not an end in itself. Every democratic government needs basic mechanisms to guarantee perpetuation of its institutions and preclude certain behaviors. In the US, the Bill of Rights more or less fulfills the latter role, and a remarkably enduring social consensus (which broke down, really, only in the antebellum American South) guarantees the former. A democracy that immediately self-destructs after the first election, a la Algeria, or that merely lends popular sanction to blundering bellicosity at home and abroad, a la Pakistan, is of little use to its people or the world at large. How, then, to tame the inherent instability of popular choice? How do we curb the all-too-likely extremes?

The preferable choice, of course, is to foster social values that lead to the maintenance of democratic institutions. At first glance, this seems unlikely. I am, for my part, quite convinced that Europe and America have developed relatively successful democratic political cultures largely because of the heritage of the Protestant Reformation; what the Islamic analogue would be there, I've not a clue. This is not the space to explore Islam's compatability with democracy -- it is enough to note that Islamic-majority nations have a mostly sad, fruitless history when it comes to the democratic experiment. (We have to hope Islam is compatible with democracy, and with classical notions of liberty, because the alternative is too awful to contemplate.) But there are three bright spots, and we should examine them in turn.

The first bright spot is Turkey. Turkey is often and justly derided for its abominable treatment of ethnic minorities, its barely-suppressed retention of the Ottoman urge to conquest, and its perpetually rickety economy. Most of all, Turkey suffers because its political perpetuity is, in essence, subject to a self-imposed Platt Amendment: if democracy in Turkey is threatened, it will be saved -- and destroyed all at once -- by the Turkish military. Democracy is synonymous with "secularism"; and so Turkish democracy is preserved only through a wrenching cultural divorce from history, and the creation of an alienated class of ruthless armed guardians. Ideal? Hardly -- but still worlds better than, well, almost every other Islamic-majority nation.

The second bright spot is actually a few bright spots which I'll class together, because they are so similar. Morocco, Qatar, Bahrain and Jordan are monarchies whose rulers have seen fit to allow limited popular participation in parliaments of various forms. However, they must constantly be on guard against extreme elements that would seize the state in order to destroy it; therefore they cannot allow their democratic projects to culminate, and they must continue to maintain some sort of repressive apparatus. Democratic culture here is alternately imposed and encouraged from above, and therefore not necessarily reflective of societal wishes. Again, imperfect, but also a sight better than most of their neighbors.

The third bright spot is, surprisingly, Iran. The "extreme elements" are already in control there, and they've been in control for almost a quarter-century. The crimes of the Iranian theocracy, which exercises and maintains its rule through an unelected Council of Guardians, need no elaboration here: what is important is that the democratic culture there seems more or less rejectionist towards the self-styled "Islamic Republic." And what is especially important is that the democratic culture seems to be -- unlike in Turkey or the monarchies -- genuinely reflective of social desires, and not a potentially alienating project from on high. It is important not to be starry-eyed when making such assessments (what will happen to Michael Ledeen's career when a mullah wins an election?), but in truth, it looks like the Iranians may be furthest along in the Middle East when it comes to constructing a real, functioning democracy.

Which brings us back to Emma's question: what good would it do to install democracy in Islamic lands if all it accomplished was to bring Islamists to power? The answer, I think, is this: it's the risk we run, and the price we pay. All the alternatives have already failed. A democratic Saudi Arabia electing Wahhabist firebrands to office would be a terrible sight and a menace to the rest of us. But we must ask: are we safe now? Do the Wahhabist firebrands not exist now? Time to be bold. Time to let the people of the Middle East learn their own lessons, as the people of Iran seem to be. Time to let them learn by making mistakes -- with the novel recourse of an electoral corrective when they do.

And time to accept that while we cannot guarantee the best outcome, we can guarantee our best effort. The greatest of failures is the failure to try.

[Alex @ ISPrime]

We are going to keep the oil fields and give them Big Mac and Fries in return :yowsa:

[PornoDoggy]

Alex ... you forgot Starbucks.

[Alex @ ISPrime]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 27 2003, 08:31 PM
Alex ... you forgot Starbucks.
Actualy you're right, maybe we can setup few of those there as well with some wireless internet built in, that way they can browse the internet while getting some Mocha :)

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by Alex @ ISPrime+Mar 27 2003, 08:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex @ ISPrime @ Mar 27 2003, 08:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Mar 27 2003, 08:31 PM
Alex ... you forgot Starbucks.
Actualy you're right, maybe we can setup few of those there as well with some wireless internet built in, that way they can browse the internet while getting some Mocha :)[/b][/quote]
I wonder if Halliburton will get to implement the wireless towers, etc. since they seem to have gotten the contracts to do everything else ;)))

[Rox]

Mike, that's an excellent essay. Who wrote it, and where'd you find it?

I am, for my part, quite convinced that Europe and America have developed relatively successful democratic political cultures largely because of the heritage of the Protestant Reformation; what the Islamic analogue would be there, I've not a clue. This is not the space to explore Islam's compatability with democracy -- it is enough to note that Islamic-majority nations have a mostly sad, fruitless history when it comes to the democratic experiment. (We have to hope Islam is compatible with democracy, and with classical notions of liberty, because the alternative is too awful to contemplate.)

This assessment is dead-on. One of the reasons I'm pessimistic about any "peace" in the Middle East is because there has been no Reformation of Islam, and in light of that, there's not much chance of success in fostering democracy as we know it. But that's not to say that I don't HOPE it could happen one day. I'm just not anticipating it happening in our lifetime, unfortunately.

Believe me, I sincerely *wish* with all my heart that the world's people could ALL live in peace -- I just don't see it happening until every nation is a secular one. Even our own. Nothing brings out the worst in people like religious fervor, and the conviction that their god's better than everyone else's. Some of the most tragic stories in world history have come about because of one group or another's religious fanaticism. We need look no further than our own American missionaries conversions of the "savages" here in the US, or in the Hawaiian Islands.

"They came to do good, and instead did well."

It's depressing. :cryin:

[cj]

Originally posted by Alex @ ISPrime+Mar 27 2003, 08:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex @ ISPrime @ Mar 27 2003, 08:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Mar 27 2003, 08:31 PM
Alex ... you forgot Starbucks.
Actualy you're right, maybe we can setup few of those there as well with some wireless internet built in, that way they can browse the internet while getting some Mocha :)[/b][/quote]
whose going to be first to make them a porn site?!

:biglaugh:

[Almighty Colin]

Mike,

Saw an interview with Kissinger where he said that he thought each of those three regions should be at least temporarily autonomous and form a central government later.

------------

The idea of "nations" was pretty much enforced on that region by western powers. We westerners keep saying "Saddam gassed his OWN people" but he doesn't think of them as "his own people". We do. The Western powers that be will try and hold to the Woodrow Wilson doctrine of permanent borders though.

There is no solution that makes everyone happy. Kurds want autonomy. Turkey wants an intact Iraq. Iran wants "West Iran". Arabs want no imperialism and anything that happens will be viewed as imperialistic regardless since there is no one solution that makes everyone happy. More than one Arab thinks there is a conspiracy between the Israel and the US to make another Israel. Wanna have some fun? Let's arm the Kurds and let them claim their independence. 1948 all over again?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Rox@Mar 27 2003, 11:18 PM
One of the reasons I'm pessimistic about any "peace" in the Middle East
I'm pessimistic about "peace" anywhere. Not only pessimistic, I don't believe it's possible* There have been quite a continuum of conflicts for all historic times. With hundreds of nations and technology improving so that many of these nations may wage war across great distances, I don't see an end in sight.

It's possible that wars are a good and necessary part of being human. A Darwinian struggle between nations. The fittest survive. Continual wars between humans cause an increasing arms escalation improving the chances of defense against alien invaders (HAHA!)

A funny note. I keep hearing newscasters,etc. saying the US is trying to bring peace to the world as bombs are dropping all over Iraq. Jokers.

*OK, less than 1% chance in next 1000 years.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Rox@Mar 27 2003, 11:18 PM
Believe me, I sincerely *wish* with all my heart that the world's people could ALL live in peace -- I just don't see it happening until every nation is a secular one.
I don't think this will solve anything. The US is attacking Iraq and both are secular.

The Nazis were attacking all of Europe and not because of a religious view.

[Rox]

Originally posted by Colin+Mar 28 2003, 02:36 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Colin @ Mar 28 2003, 02:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Rox@Mar 27 2003, 11:18 PM
Believe me, I sincerely *wish* with all my heart that the world's people could ALL live in peace -- I just don't see it happening until every nation is a secular one.
I don't think this will solve anything. The US is attacking Iraq and both are secular.

The Nazis were attacking all of Europe and not because of a religious view.[/b][/quote]
Excellent points. I retract my statement. :D

I don't hold much hope for world peace either. Mankind just can't seem to get past fighting and killing each other for more... more land, more possessions, more power. Apparently it's just the nature of the beast.

[RawAlex]

When you really think about it, Iraq is in an amazing position to be able to leap forward through alot of development in a hurry because of the oil they have.

Let them auction off the oil rights for a couple of areas. impose a per barrel outgoing oil tax for all exports outside of the country... Iraqi oil, like that in Saudi Arabia, is some of the cheapest in the world to extract - just about "dig a hole and get some buckets".

A one time big payment, followed by continued tax revenue would certainly go a long way to putting this country back on it's feet. More importantly, foreign investment would mean people working, cities growing, new jobs being created, etc. Suddenly you don't have 60% of the nation living on UN handouts anymore.

Iraq owns the oil - and it would be smart for them to commercialize it as quickly as possible.

The Halliburton thing peeves me quite a bit... there are better companies out there for fire fighting oil wells... but the inside edge is the inside edge, no?

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 28 2003, 11:53 AM
the inside edge is the inside edge
Agreed.

[Torone]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 28 2003, 11:53 AM
Let them auction off the oil rights for a couple of areas. impose a per barrel outgoing oil tax for all exports outside of the country... Iraqi oil, like that in Saudi Arabia, is some of the cheapest in the world to extract - just about "dig a hole and get some buckets".

A one time big payment, followed by continued tax revenue would certainly go a long way to putting this country back on it's feet. More importantly, foreign investment would mean people working, cities growing, new jobs being created, etc. Suddenly you don't have 60% of the nation living on UN handouts anymore.

Iraq owns the oil - and it would be smart for them to commercialize it as quickly as possible.

The Halliburton thing peeves me quite a bit... there are better companies out there for fire fighting oil wells... but the inside edge is the inside edge, no?

Alex
Why tax something that you no longer own? Sounds like Liberalism at work to me...

As for Halliburton...Sorry, but they ARE the biggest, the best, and probably offered the lowest bid. Remember, Red Adair retired after the Gulf War (He should have. He's older than me, LOL!).

[Torone]

This just in from the Houston Chronicle (with a great number of tears...they're a Lib rag):

Halliburton is not in the running for Iraq...because of their former relationship with Cheney. Integrity!

[cj]

Originally posted by Rox+Mar 28 2003, 10:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rox @ Mar 28 2003, 10:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Colin@Mar 28 2003, 02:36 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Rox@Mar 27 2003, 11:18 PM
Believe me, I sincerely *wish* with all my heart that the world's people could ALL live in peace -- I just don't see it happening until every nation is a secular one.
I don't think this will solve anything. The US is attacking Iraq and both are secular.

The Nazis were attacking all of Europe and not because of a religious view.
Excellent points. I retract my statement. :D

I don't hold much hope for world peace either. Mankind just can't seem to get past fighting and killing each other for more... more land, more possessions, more power. Apparently it's just the nature of the beast.[/b][/quote]
was there EVER a time when the world was entirely at peace?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by cj+Mar 29 2003, 09:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (cj @ Mar 29 2003, 09:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Rox@Mar 28 2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by -Colin@Mar 28 2003, 02:36 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Rox@Mar 27 2003, 11:18 PM
Believe me, I sincerely *wish* with all my heart that the world's people could ALL live in peace -- I just don't see it happening until every nation is a secular one.
I don't think this will solve anything. The US is attacking Iraq and both are secular.

The Nazis were attacking all of Europe and not because of a religious view.
Excellent points. I retract my statement. :D

I don't hold much hope for world peace either. Mankind just can't seem to get past fighting and killing each other for more... more land, more possessions, more power. Apparently it's just the nature of the beast.
was there EVER a time when the world was entirely at peace?[/b][/quote]
Doubtful. I read a study that showed the "death by human" rate was higher in tribal societies than in nations. The study pointed out that if the entire wold was tribal during WW II, even more people would have died.

Maybe because a smaller percentage of people go to war in "civilized societies"?

See Rwanda, Zaire, etc.

Can't find the book right now for definition of "tribal", etc.

[gigi]

Originally posted by Torone@Mar 29 2003, 07:50 AM
Why tax something that you no longer own? Sounds like Liberalism at work to me...
Ermm...why would Iraq NOT own the oil post-war?

:blink:

[Almighty Colin]

Update on Halliburton Contracts etc (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2901793.stm)

Tidbits:

1. Halliburton out of the running for "rebuild Iraq" contract.
2. Second-largest oilfield services firm in the world
3. Was awarded contracts last week to put out oil well fires in Iraq.

[Torone]

Originally posted by gigi+Mar 30 2003, 06:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (gigi @ Mar 30 2003, 06:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Torone@Mar 29 2003, 07:50 AM
Why tax something that you no longer own? Sounds like Liberalism at work to me...
Ermm...why would Iraq NOT own the oil post-war?

:blink:[/b][/quote]
Sorry! I guess that post wasn't clear enough...
What they would be taxing that they would not own is the oil that they had already sold.

"Let them auction off the oil rights for a couple of areas. impose a per barrel outgoing oil tax for all exports outside of the country... Iraqi oil, like that in Saudi Arabia, is some of the cheapest in the world to extract - just about "dig a hole and get some buckets"."



Last edited by Torone at Mar 31 2003, 08:11 AM

[gigi]

Ahhh, okay. IC....so if they auction off the oil rights they shouldn't be allowed to tax the oil.....makes sense.

[Almighty Colin]

New article: http://www.prolog.net/webnews/wed/cn/Qiraq...s.RTQf_DMU.html (http://www.prolog.net/webnews/wed/cn/Qiraq-war-oil-un-us.RTQf_DMU.html)

CAIRO, March 30 (AFP) - The United States and Britain will place Iraq's future oil revenue in a UN-supervised account, said British Prime Minister Tony Blair in an article published Sunday in Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram.

US "President (George W.) Bush, Prime Minister (of Spain Jose Maria) Aznar and I have pledged Iraq's oil will be placed in a UN trust fund to benefit the people of Iraq and renew a once great nation," wrote Blair.

"We will work together towards lifting UN sanctions as soon as Iraq meets its obligations," he added, referring to the embargo imposed after Baghdad's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, which ended seven months later.

"I want all Iraqis -- Arab, Assyrian, Kurd, Turkoman, Sunni, Shiite, Christian and all other groups -- to share in the fruits of this new, prosperous Iraq, united within its current border," Blair said.

"British military forces will withdraw from Iraq as soon as practicable. We hope to see the early establishment of a transitional civilian administration, " he stressed.

Blair's comment comes amid British press reports of differences between him and Bush on the role of the United Nations in post-war Iraq, including supervision of the vital oil sector.

Britain wants a prominent role for the UN while the United States is wary of its slow bureaucracy, offering the international organisation a backseat with mainly humanitarian prerogatives .

The UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1472 Friday, allowing resumption of its "oil-for-food" programme for Iraq, giving Secretary General Kofi Annan control for 45 days over the humanitarian side of the UN programme that uses Iraq's oil revenues for food and medical supplies.

Iraq swiftly rejected the resolution. "Any measure which does not involve the Iraqi government cannot be implemented on the ground," said Information Minister Mohammed Said al-Sahhaf.