Nationalists Stirring in Iraq "..blocking the privatization of Iraq's oil"

[slipslidingaway]

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/dreyfuss


"On January 13 an emerging Sunni-Shiite nationalist bloc in Iraq signed a groundbreaking agreement aimed at ending Iraq's civil war, blocking the privatization of Iraq's oil industry and checkmating the breakaway Kurdish state. It's a big step forward, and it could change the face of Iraqi politics in 2008.

For the past two years, Iraqi nationalists--opposed to the US occupation, opposed to Al Qaeda and opposed to Iran's heavyhanded influence in Iraqi affairs--have struggled to assert themselves. The nascent coalition contains the seeds of true national reconciliation in Iraq, but it has emerged independently of the United States. Unrelated to the constant American pressure on the government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to meet various reconciliation "benchmarks," the new coalition is designed either to sweep Maliki out of office or force him to join it.

Enormous obstacles stand in the way of the Sunni-Shiite coalition, and Iraq is just as likely to descend into a new round of intense civil war as it is to stabilize under a new ruling bloc. Still, it could work, but there's a big if--if the United States steps back and gets out of the way...

...In the end, Iraq is still a shattered nation. Its economy is a shambles. The sectarian civil war has eased, but violence is everywhere. In the past week, two major US military actions--a sweeping offensive just north of Baghdad and one of the heaviest aerial bombardments of an area south of the capital--killed scores. The situation around Kirkuk is explosive. And intra-Shiite violence in Basra and other cities in the south simmers just below civil war levels. Even without US interference, it might still take a miracle for a stable Iraqi coalition to take root."

[slipslidingaway]

1. Nationalists Stirring in Iraq...

This post was not showing up in my posts, I know it has something to do with the quotes in the original.

[tabasco]

2. How dare they interfere with Dick Cheney's oil?!?

4000 US troops sacrificed to get control of that oil and now the Iraqis want it for themselves!!

And all because their country just happens to sit on top of it. Good grief!! Greedy Iraqis!

[slipslidingaway]

8. How dare they indeed, if the tide were turned we would be

fighting for the future of our children as well.

[AntiFascist]

3. K&R, this is very important....

If we truly want Iraq to succeed as a sovereign nation then the American people need to support this effort, and allow Iraq to DEMOCRATICALLY determine, by itself, how to manage its highly valuable natural resources. There are too many external influences disrupting this unity, including those of the US trying to force Iraq to turn over its oil resources to private companies. While the latter would certainly help out Bush and Cheney's neocon oil cronies, it would not do the American people any good since ongoing combat efforts would likely be required to secure the oil interests, and the resulting military spending would only further bankrupt our nation for the benefit of the oil elite.

[Disturbed]

4. Has the Surge brought on unintended consequences?

Garnering the Oil for US consumption was the goal of the Illegal Iraqi Invasion. The Surge was aimed at
securing those Oil Deals. Maybe the Iraqis know that the Surge can't last for another year & are merely biding the time until then?

[AntiFascist]

17. Whenever you hear about achieving a 'political victory' in Iraq...

you know that the greedy Oil Deal is their key objective.

[kas125]

23. I know a vet who was one of the first ones there, before the bombing even started

He said they were sent to guard the oil fields. They said on the news at the beginning of the war that we had soldiers guarding the oil fields so nobody could "set them on fire."

It's been obvious from the very beginning that we went there to get the oil, and there are lots of people who are just starting to believe it.

[slipslidingaway]

25. Good video "No End In Sight" just posted the trailer clip in the

videos section.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=85475&mesg_id=85475

[leftchick]

5. do any of the Dem Candidates want ALL troops out?

I mean ZERO left behind instead of thousands "for our vital national security interests" (OIL) as hillary states?

[AntiFascist]

15. Exactly, Hillary pretty much spelled it out in that comment...

which is in line with the DLC (neocon-lite) foreign policy platform. Obama as well seems to be appealing to the neocons. Only Edwards has called for no more combat missions in Iraq.

[kas125]

26. only Dennis.

[slipslidingaway]

9. Thanks for the great reply and one addition to your list...

"If we truly want Iraq to succeed as a sovereign nation then the American people need to support this effort, and allow Iraq to DEMOCRATICALLY determine, by itself, how to manage its highly valuable natural resources. There are too many external influences disrupting this unity, including those of the US trying to force Iraq to turn over its oil resources to private companies. While the latter would certainly help out Bush and Cheney's neocon oil cronies, it would not do the American people any good since ongoing combat efforts would likely be required to secure the oil interests, and the resulting military spending would only further bankrupt our nation for the benefit of the oil elite."


And we are creating future terrorists for the next generation :(

[AntiFascist]

16. Yes, great point....

that seems to be the underlying pro-war stance of the Republicans: feed terrorism so that we have to continue to support the military-industrial complex and the war profiteers.

[slipslidingaway]

21. Yes, sadly though it has not just been Republicans :( n/t

[xchrom]

6. recommend -- if the gov of iraq retains control of the oil

then the notion that iraq will pay for the war -- a la bushco -- disappears like weapons of mass destruction.

nationalists will realize{already do} the u.s. has not been a friend to them -- and they will also be very interested in the indiscriminate killing of iraqi civilians and destruction of iraqi infrastructure.

[slipslidingaway]

10. Very true and the truth hurts sometimes. Continuing to cover up

for this administration and those who went along and/or remained silent would be difficult, although it would add to our long term security IMO.

[mmonk]

7. So they aren't going to go along with our "benchmarks"?

Does that mean we will have to stay and fight "al Queda"?

[slipslidingaway]

11. When the Democratic Congress allowed that benchmark to

remain in the supplemental bill it was a clear signal that they were going along. Although they did temper the languange in the second supplemental bill.


"Does that mean we will have to stay and fight "al Queda"?

:applause:

[Orsino]

12. Iraqis are smarter and better-informed than Americans? n/t

[slipslidingaway]

13. Sad and this topic is always ignored on DU n/t

[Disturbed]

14. "Do any of the Dem Candidates want ALL troops out?

Yes. Edwards, Kucinich & Gravel.

[slipslidingaway]

20. There is still a big difference in their positions and Edwards

has remained silent on this issue. Dennis has been paving the way on this and many issues, Edwards could have at least thrown a bone to him. He did not, that speaks volumes to me.

[Mountainman]

18. Now that's not the democracy Bush had in mind. He wanted a puppet leader like himself,

elected through stolen elections like himself which would give oil profits to his friends. These folks want the US the hell out of their country and out of their natural resources.

[Disturbed]

19. Maliki and crew will be out soon. The Puppets will not be allowed

to act upon their own. The Oil will be in US control no matter what must be done.

[slipslidingaway]

22. Yes, there have been some updates on this issue....

will try and post later.

Thanks :)

[slipslidingaway]

24. Kick for the evening crowd, thanks for the K&R's. Other links...

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm

"Iraq has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves. According to oil industry experts, new exploration will probably raise Iraq’s reserves to 200+ billion barrels of high-grade crude, extraordinarily cheap to produce. The four giant firms located in the US and the UK have been keen to get back into Iraq, from which they were excluded with the nationalization of 1972. During the final years of the Saddam era, they envied companies from France, Russia, China, and elsewhere, who had obtained major contracts. But UN sanctions (kept in place by the US and the UK) kept those contracts inoperable. Since the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, much has changed. In the new setting, with Washington running the show, "friendly" companies expect to gain most of the lucrative oil deals that will be worth hundreds of billions of dollars in profits in the coming decades. The Iraqi constitution of 2005, greatly influenced by US advisors, contains language that guarantees a major role for foreign companies. Negotiators hope soon to complete deals on Production Sharing Agreements that will give the companies control over dozens of fields, including the fabled super-giant Majnoon. But first the Parliament must pass a new oil sector investment law allowing foreign companies to assume a major role in the country. The US has threatened to withhold funding as well as financial and military support if the law does not soon pass. Although the Iraqi cabinet endorsed the draft law in July 2007, Parliament has balked at the legislation. Most Iraqis favor continued control by a national company and the powerful oil workers union strongly opposes de-nationalization. Iraq's political future is very much in flux, but oil remains the central feature of the political landscape..."

http://www.iraqoillaw.com/

http://priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/war-terror/iraqi-oil-law/

http://iraqoilreport.com/