Thread: Iraqi/Dinar News History 2-3-07 thru 3-5-07(at 11:30am cst)

I found the following article on a blog - it is only an opinion but it is a very interesting read - especially the last few paragraphs. Apologies in advance if it has been posted before - it doesn't paint a pretty picture of the American Government and I'm afraid it is rather long.

The Blog | Antonia Juhasz: Are U.S. Oil Companies Going to "Win" the Iraq War? | The Huffington Post


"The U.S. invasion of Iraq was not preemption; it was ... an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantages." - Michael Scheuer, the CIA's senior expert on al-Qaeda until he quit in disgust with the Bush administration, in Imperial Hubris.
Remember oil? That resource we didn't go to war for in Iraq?
Well, you'll have a tough time convincing anyone in Iraq of this particular claim if a new oil law set to go before the Iraqi Parliament within weeks (or even days) becomes the law of the land.


On Monday, the Bush administration and U.S. oil companies came one step closer to "winning" the war in Iraq when the Iraqi Cabinet passed this new national oil law.

The brainchild of the Bush administration and its corporate allies, the law is the smoking gun exposing Bush's war for oil.


The Oil Law

If passed, the law would transform Iraq's oil system from a nationalized model all-but-closed to U.S. oil companies, to a commercialized model, all-but-fully privatized and opened to U.S. corporate control.

Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, U.S. oil companies were shut out of Iraq's oil industry with the exception of limited marketing contracts.
As a result of the invasion, if the oil law passes, U.S. oil companies will emerge as the corporate front-runners in line for contracts giving them control over the vast majority of Iraq's oil under some of the most corporate-friendly terms in the world for twenty to thirty-five years.
The law grants the Iraq National Oil Company oversight only over "existing" fields, which is about one-third of Iraq's oil. Exploration and production contracts for the remaining two-thirds of Iraq's oil will be opened to private foreign investment. Neither Iraqi public nor private oil companies will receive any preference in contracting decisions.

The contracts allow for foreign companies to take ownership of Iraq's oil fields without actually having to get to work for as long as seven years. Thus, the companies can take advantage of the incredibly weak negotiating position of the Iraqi government at a time of foreign occupation and civil war, while simultaneously being able to "ride out" the current "instability" in Iraq.

Foreign companies do not have to reinvest any of their earnings in the Iraqi economy, hire or train Iraqi workers, transfer useful technology, or partner with Iraqi companies.

The exact contract model is yet to be determined, but it appears that Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) are yet again on the table. These are the contract-darlings of international oil companies that grant foreign companies greater control, profits, and longer contract terms than the contracts preferred by the majority of the world's oil countries. In fact, PSAs are only used in about 12 percent of the world's oil.

If the new law passed, Iraq's oil system would be utterly unique in the Middle East and in virtually any oil rich nation. For example, Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia all maintain nationalized oil systems and have outlawed foreign control over oil development. They all hire foreign oil companies as contractors to provide specific services, as needed, for a limited duration, without giving the foreign company any direct interest in the oil produced. Iraq, freed from the pressure of a foreign occupation, would likely do the same.



The Propaganda

Contrary to the Bush administration's claims, Iraq does not need foreign oil corporations in order reap the benefits of its oil. Prior to the U.S. invasion, Iraq produced an average of 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. Since the invasion, the Iraqis have averaged approximately 2.2 million barrels of oil a day. This amount has dropped recently due to the surge in violence to about 1.7 million barrels a day. Because Iraq's oil is the cheapest in the world to produce, only about sixty cents a barrel, and oil is selling today at $61 per barrel - the return on any investment is enormous. At its current low rate of production, Iraq is expected to generate more than $30 billion from its oil this year alone - more than enough to keep the industry running and the economy stable.

The administration has been selling the law as a way to bring increased equality and stability to Iraq. It is correct on one point. The law does introduce a very equitable distribution of Iraq's oil revenues from the central government based on population. However, the benefits of this new provision are dramatically reduced if the majority of Iraq's revenues are going overseas.

The law is likely to bring far more instability to Iraq. In fact, many Iraqi oil experts are already referring to the draft law as the "Split Iraq Fund," arguing that it facilitates plans for splitting Iraq into three ethnic/religious regions. The experts believe the law undermines the central government and shifts important decision-making and responsibilities to the regional entities. This shift could serve as the foundation for establishing three new independent states, which is the goal of a number of separatist leaders.

The law opens the possibility of the regions taking control of Iraq's oil, but it also maintains the possibility of the central government retaining control. In fact, the law was written in a vague manner to help ensure passage, a ploy reminiscent of the passage of the Iraqi constitution. There is a significant conflict between the Bush administration and others in Iraq who would like ultimate authority for Iraq's oil to rest with the central government and those who would like to see the nation split in three. Both groups are powerful in Iraq. Both groups have been mollified, for now, to ensure the law's passage.

But two very different outcomes are possible. If the central government remains the ultimate decision-making authority in Iraq, then the newly established Iraq Federal Oil and Gas Council will exercise power over the regions. And if the regions emerge as the strongest power in Iraq, then the Council could simply become a silent rubber stamp, enforcing the will of the regions. The same lack of clarity exists in Iraq's constitution.

What is clear, however, is that the foreign oil corporations do have their rights clearly established. They have the right to explore, produce, control, and have guaranteed revenue from the second largest oil reserves in the world.
Of course, we would expect very little in increased stability to follow from a U.S. corporate oil-grab of Iraq. The American who will pay the heaviest price are likely to be U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq.



Pre-War Planning

We all know that the Bush administration began planning for the Iraq war well before the September 11 terrorist attacks. In fact, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil has explained that by February 2001, the administration was well passed debating whether or not to attack Iraq, but rather discussing the logistics of how to invade.

Few people know that just month later, in March 2001; Cheney's Energy Task Force was working on a series of maps and lists outlining Iraq's entire oil productive capacity and the foreign companies lined-up to cash-in.

The task force included representatives from all of the major U.S. oil and energy service companies, including Halliburton, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. In addition to maps, they compiled two lists entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts as of 5 March 2001" that listed all the companies - none of them American - that were in negotiations with, or had already signed, oil contracts with Saddam Hussein.

Because of the sanctions against Iraq, however, none of the contracts were actually in force. But the writing was on the wall. Global public opinion had turned against the sanctions. If the sanctions were removed while Saddam Hussein was in power, oil companies from China, Russia, France, and elsewhere would get their hands on Iraq's oil, while U.S. companies would be left out.

The U.S. State Department's Oil and Energy Working Group began meeting in December 2002. By April 2003, the group recommended that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war," using PSAs.
Since then, the Bush administration has invaded Iraq, ousted Saddam Hussein, put the pre-existing oil contracts on hold, and has nearly succeeded in a four-year long venture to restructure the Iraqi oil industry for itself and its corporate allies.



Iraqis Shut-Out

Most Iraqis, including, until very recently Iraqi Parliamentarians, have remained in the dark about the new oil law. Iraq's oil workers had to travel to Jordan to learn details of the law from the London-based research organization Platform. As a result, in September 2006, the nation's five trade union federations--between them representing hundreds of thousands of workers--released a public statement rejecting "the handing of control over oil to foreign companies, whose aim is to make big profits at the expense of the Iraqi people, and to rob the national wealth, according to long-term, unfair contracts, that undermine the sovereignty of the state and the dignity of the Iraqi people." They demanded a delay in consideration of any law until all Iraqis could be included in the discussion.

It's simple: the Bush administration and Big Oil are trying to get the best deal and the most oil possible out of a war-ravaged and desperate people. They are holding 25 million Iraqis - and 150,000 American troops -- hostage to their oil agenda.

There is time, if we shine enough sunlight, to expose the oil agenda driving the war and support Iraqis who believe that now is not the time for their government to rush into contracts that will lock in the fate of their most valuable resource for a generation.

Oil Change International, Global Exchange, and others organizations and communities across the United States and around the world are coming together in protest events on March 17-19, to mark the 4-year anniversary of the Iraq war.

They are urging environmentalists, climate justice, and peace activists to join together in protests at the headquarters and gas stations of the oil companies leading the charge in Iraq: Chevron, ExxonMobil, Marathon, ConocoPhillips, Shell and BP. Learn more at Oil Change.

In the Bay Area, activists are planning a Rally, Protest, and Nonviolent Direct Action at Chevron's World Headquarters on March 19 from 7:00-11:00am in San Ramon. Visit www.myspace.com/protestchevron for details.
An international network of groups is organizing protests under the heading "Hands Off Iraq's Oil!" Visit their website http://www.HandsOffIraqiOil.org/.

Regional News
Kurdish students in 'orange' protest
Published Date: March 05, 2007

SULAIMANIYAH: Around 100 Iraqi Kurdish students held a Ukrainian-style "orange protest" yesterday in the northern city of Sulaimaniyah to protest against corruption in their regional government. The students waved orange banners similar to those flown by pro-democracy demonstrators in Kiev in 2004 and 2005 and have chosen a name for their movement-"Solidarity"-that harks back to Polish trade unionists of the 1980s. "We are trying to send a message to the government to persuade them to carry out reforms and take measures against corruption," the movement's leader Zana Abdel Karim told an AFP reporter. Iraq's northern Kurdish region has enjoyed almost total autonomy for more than 16 years, and has been spared the carnage that has descended on central and southern Arab areas while making modest economic progress. But many in the region believe that the two powerful political parties that control the area have unfairly divided up its wealth between themselves. Abdel Karim said Solidarity had polled 4,000 students and that 90 percent of them believe there is corruption in the government, which is looking forward to increased revenues as Kurdistan attracts oil prospectors. Sulaimaniyah University officials tried to prevent journalists covering the event, and some students said they had been threatened with expulsion.

Iran indicates set to take part in Iraq conference Mon Mar 5, 5:48 AM ET



TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran said on Monday it was "not hostile" to joining its arch enemy the United States and other permanent UN Security Council members at conference on Iraq's security in Baghdad this month.

"We have indicated that we are not hostile to the invitation of deputy foreign ministers of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (to the March 10 conference)," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said.

The conference, which is aimed at quelling the violence in Iraq, is set to include both the United States and neighbours of Iraq such as Iran and Syria, in a rare opportunity for the enemies to sit down at one table.

Mottaki also confirmed that a similar but higher-level gathering of foreign ministers was planned after the conference although he said it was being organised at Iran's behest.

"We have proposed that after this meeting, the foreign ministers of the neighbouring countries and the five permanent members of the Security Council meet and there is no refusal in principle."

"There are discussions about the location. We prefer Baghdad but if it was Istanbul or somewhere else it would not pose a problem."

The Iranian foreign ministry had on Sunday emphasised no direct talks were planned between Iran and the United States at the Baghdad conference.

The US ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said in a television interview that no decision had yet been taken on US-Iran talks at the meeting.

"We have not decided at this point with regard to anything bilateral, but we will be prepared to play our role as constructively as possible," he said.

Iran and the United States have had no diplomatic relations since Washington severed ties in 1980 in the wake of the seizure of its embassy in Tehran by Islamist students.

Any direct contacts between the two sides would mark a major break in the frozen relations, which have been marked by mutual recriminations and enmity over almost three decades.

Washington has repeatedly accused Tehran of fomenting the violence in Iraq and arming Shiite extremists who have carried out deadly attacks on Iraqis and US troops. Iran vehemently denies the charges

Server posting time is off again... showing correct time however at the bottom of the page.

Just an FYI

Test Post

Originally Posted by Seaview

No offense taken. That's alot tamer than some of the responses I've received from elsewhere. Maybe somewhat controversial - but still a good read.

Test Post

Site seems to be fubar

Iraq needs an 'economic surge' Iraq needs an 'economic surge'
04 March 2007 (Khaleej Times)


WE ARE now fighting a war intelligently in Iraq. The only problem is, it’s the last war, not the present one. The United States has gambled all its efforts on a troop surge that tackles the conflict that defined Iraq from 2003 to 2005 — the insurgency — rather than the civil war now raging across the country.

Worse, in trying to solve yesterday’s problem we are exacerbating today’s. In Baghdad, Shia militias have melted away. Almost all US military operations are now directed against Sunni insurgents. If those are successful, the picture could look less violent in six months, but it will be a dangerous stasis. A senior US military officer, who is not allowed to speak on the record on these matters, said to me, "If we continue down the path we’re on, the Sunnis in Iraq will throw their lot behind Al Qaeda, and the Sunni majority in the Arab world will believe that we helped in the killing and cleansing of their brethren in Iraq. That’s not a good outcome for the security of the American people."

We don’t intend to side with anyone. We’re trying to be evenhanded and build a single, democratic nation. But this attempt at neutrality is collapsing in Iraq’s bloody sectarian reality. Last week’s uproar over allegations that Shia policemen in Baghdad had raped a 20-year-old Sunni woman vividly illustrates how trust between the two communities has been shattered. Shia Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki first ordered an investigation, then 12 hours later declared the woman a liar, freed and rewarded the alleged rapists and later fired a Sunni official who had called for an unbiased investigation. Meanwhile we’re stuck in the middle, promising to uncover the truth while both sides are convinced that we’ve betrayed them. This is the definition of a no-win strategy.

The United States needs to find fresh approaches that won’t feed the sectarian dynamic and will address the needs of ordinary Iraqis, not the political elites who are jockeying for power. Most important, we need to find a strategy whose costs are sustainable. Militarily this means drawing down our forces to around 60,000 troops and concentrating on Al Qaeda in Anbar province. The surge we should be pushing instead is a political one, and even more critically, an economic one.

An economic surge is long overdue. One of the less-remarked-upon blunders of the Coalition Provisional Authority was that — consumed by free-market ideology — it shut down all of Iraq’s state-owned enterprises. This crippled the bulk of Iraq’s non-oil economy, threw hundreds of thousands of workers into the streets and further alienated the Sunnis, who were the managerial class of the country. The economic effects of this decision have been seismic. For example, Iraq’s agricultural productivity has plummeted because fertiliser plants were summarily closed. Unemployment in non-Kurdish Iraq remains close to 50 per cent, which helps explain why so many young men are joining gangs, militias and insurgent groups. For the moment at least, democracy in Iraq has sharpened the country’s divisions. Capitalism and commerce can make them less relevant. That is the lesson of many conflict-ridden countries from Northern Ireland to Mozambique to Vietnam.

Iraq needs an 'economic surge' | Iraq Updates

Voices of Iraq : Parliament-meeting
كتب: nakr2004 في يوم الأثنين, 05 مارس, 2007 - 01:48 PM BTBooks : nakr2004 on Monday, 05 March 2007, BT-1:48 PM

تضارب الأنباء حول إنعقاد أولى جلسات البرلمان في الفصل التشريعي الثالثConflicting reports about the first parliamentary sessions in the Legislative Chapter III
بغداد -( أصوات العراق)Baghdad - (Voices of Iraq)
قال النائب الاول لرئيس مجلس النوب الشيخ خالد العطية اليوم الإثنين إن مجلس النواب سيعقد أولى جلساته للفصل التشريعي الثالث غدا الثلاثاء ،فيما ذكر أحد نواب البرلمان من كتلة الإئتلاف العراقي الموحد أن أولى الجلسات ستعقد يوم الإثنين المقبل.He said first deputy chairman of the Alnob Sheikh Khalid al-Attiyah today, Monday, that the House of Representatives will hold the first session of the third legislative chapter tomorrow, Tuesday, in one of the deputies of the United Iraqi Alliance bloc that the first meeting will be held next Monday.
ونقل البيان الذي تلقت وكالة أنباء (أصوات العراق) المستقلة نسخة منه اليوم عن العطية قوله "سيعقد يوم غد الثلاثاء الجلسة الاولى للفصل التشريعي الثالث لمجلس النواب العراقي في الساعة الحادية عشرة صباحا."The statement received by the news agency (Voices of Iraq) independent copy of the al-Attiyah today saying, "There will be a meeting tomorrow, Tuesday the first chapter of the third Legislative Council of the Iraqi parliament at 11:00 am. "
ولم يذكر البيان جدول الاعمال الذي سيناقشه المجلس في جلسته الاولى بعد انتهاء الفصل التشريعي الثاني.The statement did not mention the agenda to be discussed by the Council at its first meeting after the end of the second legislative chapter.
وكان عضو مجلس النواب عن الإئتلاف العراقي الموحد عباس البياتي قد ذكر أمس لـ(أصوات العراق) أن المجلس سيعقد أولى جلساته في الفصل التشريعي الثالث يوم الإثنين من الإسبوع المقبل .He was a member of the House of Representatives from the United Iraqi Alliance Abbas Bayati said yesterday told (Voices of Iraq) that the Council will hold its first in chapter III Legislative Monday of the next week.
وقال البياتي في إتصال هاتفي مع ( أصوات العراق) الأحد إن "أولى جلسات البرلمان ضمن الفصل التشريعي الجديد ( الثالث) ستعقد يوم الإثنين الموافق الثالث عشر من شهر آذار مارس الجاري."Al-Bayati said in a telephone conversation with (the voices of Iraq) Sunday that "the first meetings of the parliament within the new legislative chapter (III) will be held on Monday, the 13th of the current month of March. " ورفع مجلس النواب العراقي جلساته قبل منتصف شهر شباط فبراير الماضي ، بعد أن أقر الموزانة العامة للدولة للعام الحالي (2007) التي إستغرق النواب عدة أسابيع في مناقشتها.The lifting of the Iraqi parliament before its mid-February last year, after the Assembly approved the budgetary sphere of the State this year (2007) which lasted for several weeks in the House discussion.
وقال البياتي " أمام مجلس النواب جدول أعمال مهم ،حيث تنتظره جملة من القوانين المهمة التي تنتظر التشريع" ،متوقعا أن تناقش خلال الجلسة المقبلة "مسودة مشروع قانون النفط والغاز ،الذي أحاله مجلس الوزراء على مجلس النواب لمناقشته وإقراره."Al-Bayati said, "before the House of Representatives important agenda ahead with a number of important laws awaiting legislation," is expected to be discussed during the next meeting "of a draft law on oil and gas, which was transmitted by the cabinet to the parliament for discussion and approval."
هـ هـ - م عE-RB

Originally Posted by Jola

let's look at it this way:

Maliki does the reshuffle - what's left in the Parliament & Cabinet?

People that agree with Maliki/US.

The law will pass quickly.
On the other hand, US will press them, UK will press them. Then, their people are waiting. :)

I found yesterday an article saying that - when the HCL will be implemented, there will be a $4,000/month per family from shares ( if Google did not messed up that translation) ...

I am in ageement with you.