Indirect Oil Profits in Iraq

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Here is a brief explanation of how the U.S. intends to profit from the oil in Iraq. Those of you who continuously claimed that the U.S. wasn't attempting to profit from the oil should read it carefully. Don't worry, it's very short and doesn't use long words.



A simple analogy is how baseball teams are 'in the red' but somehow behind the scenes the owners are making a profit. One of the big undisclosed ways owners make profits are when the banks they own make the loans on new stadiums. The team might still lose money, but the owner makes a kiiling (no pun intended) on interest.



The same goes for the rebuilding process in Iraq.
«1345678

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 158
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    If this is true, then it is dispicable..

    If it is untrue, then it is the biggest pile of bullshit.

    I'm always dubious of anything that the Guradian prints...

    They're so " Unbiased "
  • Reply 2 of 158
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by aquafire

    If this is true, then it is dispicable..

    If it is untrue, then it is the biggest pile of bullshit.

    I'm always dubious of anything that the Guradian prints...

    They're so " Unbiased "




    Debt is the most effective way to control the economic destiny of a country. The US and UK have been doing if forever (and don't anyone dare give me that 'conspiracy monger' BS).



    It is interesting that the US is insisting that the EU wipes out its debt to Iraq in order to help recontstruction. Presumably so it can be indebted itself.



    Aquafire, it's not rocket science, it's 100% true and yes it's dispicable. Good morning.
  • Reply 3 of 158
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    I agree with Harald here (surprise surprise).



    I suggest anyone with interest in the area to read "Globalization and the Postcolonial World" by Ankie Hoogvelt. A great book analysing the strings of interdependence between first and "third" world countries in different periodes.
  • Reply 4 of 158
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,036member
    The Guardian is one of the most Left-of-center, anti-US "news"sources on the planet. Let's just get that out of the way.



    From your link:



    Quote:

    She warned against the coalition 'using the instrument of debt to control Iraq', after it leaves. Such a motive was behind the way Germany was treated after 1918, provoking resentment that eventually encouraged the rise of Adolf Hitler.



    (Emphasis added)



    I think that pretty much says it all. But on to the issue at hand.



    I have no problem with us giving them loans and...GASP!....asking that they be SECURED loans!
  • Reply 5 of 158
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    The Guardian is one of the most Left-of-center, anti-US "news"sources on the planet. Let's just get that out of the way.



    From your link:



    (Emphasis added)



    I think that pretty much says it all. But on to the issue at hand.



    I have no problem with us giving them loans and...GASP!....asking that they be SECURED loans!






    Isn't the " media is biased " argument getting a little tired when your arguments and your links are so biased themselves?





    Still in check.
  • Reply 6 of 158
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,036member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Isn't the " media is biased " argument getting a little tired when your arguments and your links are so biased themselves?





    Still in check.




    As wrong as you are about the media, I'd hope you'd at least admit the Guardian is literally hanging off the edge of Mount St. Leftist.



    That's not the main point though. Do you have a problem with the "mortgaging" (read: securing of debt) of Iraqi oil?
  • Reply 7 of 158
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    As wrong as you are about the media, I'd hope you'd at least admit the Guardian is literally hanging off the edge of Mount St. Leftist.



    That's not the main point though. Do you have a problem with the "mortgaging" (read: securing of debt) of Iraqi oil?




    SDW, we've already established that you are very wrong about the media.



    I think this is just one of many ways we will profit from Iraq's troubles.





    Still in check.
  • Reply 8 of 158
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,455member
    Well I won't question the sources or the motives, I just question the reasoning.



    The U.S. is asking for a $120 billion on current loans to be canceled and $30 billion in new loans to rebuild and make improvements in Iraq.



    How is getting $120 billion for free with an additional $30 backed by something the entire world uses a bad thing?



    I could understand the conspiracy stuff if it were something that the market could be badly manipulated on and thus be turned worthless, (oil) say like sugarcane or coffee or something of that nature. We can't just plant oil somewhere else though and undermine the market to control Iraq via debt. Oil is used by the whole world.



    I also remember that the U.S. loaned Mexico 50 billion dollars which they paid back early.



    Nick
  • Reply 9 of 158
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Well I won't question the sources or the motives, I just question the reasoning.



    The U.S. is asking for a $120 billion on current loans to be canceled and $30 billion in new loans to rebuild and make improvements in Iraq.



    How is getting $120 billion for free with an additional $30 backed by something the entire world uses a bad thing?



    I could understand the conspiracy stuff if it were something that the market could be badly manipulated on and thus be turned worthless, (oil) say like sugarcane or coffee or something of that nature. We can't just plant oil somewhere else though and undermine the market to control Iraq via debt. Oil is used by the whole world.



    I also remember that the U.S. loaned Mexico 50 billion dollars which they paid back early.



    Nick








    Very simple. Because it's not ours.
  • Reply 10 of 158
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    jimmac:

    Quote:

    Very simple. Because it's not ours.



    If we loan them money then it certainly is ours.



    Hasn't the line since before the first bomb fell been that Iraq's rebuilding will be paid for by its own oil development? Suddenly that's despicable?
  • Reply 11 of 158
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,036member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    jimmac:





    If we loan them money then it certainly is ours.



    Hasn't the line since before the first bomb fell been that Iraq's rebuilding will be paid for by its own oil development? Suddenly that's despicable?




    Exactly. Loans should be secured. jimmac and bunge: Go ask for a $200,000 loan with no collateral. See what happens.



    Jimmac: I haven't been proven wrong. That's all there is to say. Getting six liberals to agree with you doesn't "prove" anything.
  • Reply 12 of 158
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Hasn't the line since before the first bomb fell been that Iraq's rebuilding will be paid for by its own oil development?



    It's the profiting I'm highlighting. Many people claimed we wouldn't be making money from Iraqi oil. Many claimed we would be.
  • Reply 13 of 158
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    The Guardian is one of the most Left-of-center, anti-US "news"sources on the planet. Let's just get that out of the way.



    From your link:



    She warned against the coalition 'using the instrument of debt to control Iraq', after it leaves. Such a motive was behind the way Germany was treated after 1918, provoking resentment that eventually encouraged the rise of Adolf Hitler



    I think that pretty much says it all. But on to the issue at hand.



    I have no problem with us giving them loans and...GASP!....asking that they be SECURED loans!




    This attitude, shown here, is alos exactly why Rummy is a dangerous, stupid bastard.



    SDW, Adolf came to power partly (as in "encouraged") because the victorious powers put in a system of reparations and economic debt-based sanctions that made the country unable to support itself and feeling emasculated and bitter. Maybe they don't teach that in the US, maybe a society that could produce Hitler just dropped out of the sky. There were good political reasons behind this.



    And if Rummy read some fcuking books, he'd know.



    The article says this, and points out that historical precedent. Tell you what just cover your ears and go "LALALALALALA NOT LISTENING" like you did over the war. I mean, where are those WMD? Every day they're not found is another day they could be falling into terrorist's hands, and that was the point of the war ... they were so dangerous and 'we' knew exactly where they were, right?



    Anyway, back on topic, go read some history.
  • Reply 14 of 158
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Here is a brief explanation of how the U.S. intends to profit from the oil in Iraq. Those of you who continuously claimed that the U.S. wasn't attempting to profit from the oil should read it carefully. Don't worry, it's very short and doesn't use long words.



    A simple analogy is how baseball teams are 'in the red' but somehow behind the scenes the owners are making a profit. One of the big undisclosed ways owners make profits are when the banks they own make the loans on new stadiums. The team might still lose money, but the owner makes a kiiling (no pun intended) on interest.



    The same goes for the rebuilding process in Iraq.






    Bunge please tell me where the "profit" is for the US? Iraq gets a loan that's agreed to be paid by oil revenue. Where's the major profit for the US? Maybe you misread.
  • Reply 15 of 158
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Exactly. Loans should be secured. jimmac and bunge: Go ask for a $200,000 loan with no collateral. See what happens.



    Jimmac: I haven't been proven wrong. That's all there is to say. Getting six liberals to agree with you doesn't "prove" anything.




    Oh, oh. You decided to come back! You have been proven wrong numerous times. It doesn't have anything to do with them. You couldn't answer the question!







    Still in check!
  • Reply 16 of 158
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    jimmac:





    If we loan them money then it certainly is ours.



    Hasn't the line since before the first bomb fell been that Iraq's rebuilding will be paid for by its own oil development? Suddenly that's despicable?






    We shouldn't be there in the first place!
  • Reply 17 of 158
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    We shouldn't be there in the first place!



    Yea and Iraq shouldn't have had a brutal insane dictator in the first place.
  • Reply 18 of 158
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    jimmac:





    If we loan them money then it certainly is ours.



    Hasn't the line since before the first bomb fell been that Iraq's rebuilding will be paid for by its own oil development? Suddenly that's despicable?




    Yes, except some of us said:



    "This means that Halliburton etc. is going to get very rich, not indigenous Iraqi industry, which will piss off the entire population, not to mention justifying every suspicion of economic colonialism in Iraq and the wider Islamic world, and make the world more dangerous as it makes US corporates richer."



    Comes down to the fact that the reason why the war was started has proven to be a lie (where are the WMD?), but people like me, who said that US economic interests related to oil would benefit enormously have been proven to be right. Absolutely right.



    You remember, Hassan's oil dance? All that stuff about oil? Remember?



    Put it another way: the money generated by this oil will flow directly to US conglomerates. It will not flow into the Iraqi economy until this COLOSSAL debt is paid off. This enormous debt that no Iraqi has OK'd. This enormous debt that will keep Iraq in indirect economic control by the US for eh well, for ever.



    All that money could have gone to Iraqi industry.
  • Reply 19 of 158
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    Quote:

    Yea and Iraq shouldn't have had a brutal insane dictator in the first place.



    And we should not have been helping him up until bush senior's (not junior's) gulf war.





    or done nothing when bush senior asked the iraqi people to "rise up" after the first gulf war and when they did bush senior LEFT THEM OUT TO DRY as SADDAM mowed those that rose, down.
  • Reply 20 of 158
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by keyboardf12

    And we should not have been helping him up until bush senior's (not junior's) gulf war.





    Yea and either should have France, Germany, Italy, the UN ... France should not have signed a special oil deal with the dictator that would go into effect when sanctions ended. This only emboldened Saddam and encouraged him to ignore the UN and not comply with 1441. But we're not her for a honest assessment of how the French propped up Saddam and hastened the war. We're only here to blame the US at every turn. Don your blinders.



    Quote:

    Originally posted by keyboardf12

    or done nothing when bush senior asked the iraqi people to "rise up" after the first gulf war and when they did bush senior LEFT THEM OUT TO DRY as SADDAM mowed those that rose, down. [/B]



    shoulda coulda woulda Not going all the way was the first time was the biggest mistake. I doubt we'll make that again.
Sign In or Register to comment.