America! We brought democracy to Iraq!

[mistermack]

And now the US wants 1000 billion Dollars in oil to pay for it.

Source?

I'm pretty sure the Iraqi government is selling the oil at market prices. I'm also quite sure it's going to be a long time before they pump anywhere close to "1000 billion Dollars" of it. They'll be lucky if they can get output much above 50 billion dollars worth per year in the foreseeable future.

State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said the US involvement in Iraq was far from over, but that it would be less intrusive and more civilian focused.

"We are ending the war... but we are not ending our work in Iraq. We have a long-term commitment to Iraq," he told MSNBC
Mr Crowley said the US had a trillion-dollar investment to protect in the country and wanted to honour the memory of the 4,415 US troops who lost their lives in the conflict.

If you'd bothered to follow the link in the original post, you would have read what the thread is about.
Now you work it out.
The US has a "trillion dollar investment" in Iraq.
That's why they have 50,000 troops there.
Where did the "trillion dollars" go? Schools, Hospitals, water treatment? Go and look for yourself. No sign of any of it.

That "trillion dollar investment" that they want back was cruise missiles, tanks, etc. used to kill the Iraqis.

It's like someone murdering your mother and sending you the bill for the bullet.
.

[Robert_S]

Iraqi oil used to be a public sector thing, owned by the Iraqis themselves. There was a war and this is no longer the case.

Oh, that's the leftobots' excuse?

Whatever. The oil stopped being "owned by the Iraqis themselves" (if it ever was) when Saddam seized power in 1979. By then the Ba'aths had been in de facto control of Iraq since 1968, with Saddam as the muscle. The oil was nationalized in 1972.

I do hope your cryptic little remark was not intended to convey the impression that Iraq's oil is being stolen. Buying oil concessions from the Iraq Oil Ministry is not stealing. There is nothing unusual about buying and selling oil concessions. It is the best way to maximize production and profits.

It is not up to any foreign entity to dictate how another nation ought to make use of their resources.

Where are the WMDs?
Where are the plans for the Death Star?
Where is the money Lebowski?

Running off on a tangent now, are you? Well, goodbye. Have a nice tangent run, or whatever.

As expected, your response to my question was completely inadequate bordering on fundamentally dishonest.

Just a little reminder of the original point of the party, with a little levity thrown in. I thought it might add a little perspective.

You know, there was a reason to go to war that turned out to be based on lies. Most notably the lies told when one Colin Powell whored himself out in front of the UN.

So, there were no WMD's but there is a assload of oil. Hmmmmmm..... Anyone know any ex-presidents in the oil business?

[mistermack]

.

This is on the same page of the BBC News site:

Others note the Americans are not leaving yet. Some 50,000 will remain until well into next year - as advisers and trainers with the Iraqi military. And US special forces are staying.

The State of Forces Agreement states that US troops are not allowed to mount combat operations unless they are asked to by the Iraqi authorities. But they can act, and reportedly already have acted, unilaterally by killing suspected insurgents. They justify this by saying they are protecting their troops.

And it is possible - probable, even - the December 2011 deadline will be re-negotiated. Commanders on both sides have said Iraq will not be ready.

It's perfectly clear that the plan is to stay in Iraq until they have extracted every penny of their so called "trillion dollar investment", and the 50,000 troops is a fraction of what they have in the region, ready to move at a moment's notice, if the Iraqi govornment stops paying. The excuses are already prepared for the press.
.

[Trolldor]

lol.

You ignore every little bit of information you want to, don't you?

Once again, if the Iraqi Government doesn't want them there, then all they have to do is say 'leave'.

[mistermack]

lol.

You ignore every little bit of information you want to, don't you?

Once again, if the Iraqi Government doesn't want them there, then all they have to do is say 'leave'.

And you ignore the bleedin obvious, don't you?
If they Iraqi govornment could get them to leave, ( which they wouldn't ), they would be DEAD WITHIN HOURS!!
.

[Trolldor]

Uh-huh...

But I thought the US troops were only there for the Oil? Why set up an autonomous democracy, give them the power to expel the US troops and then remain there to protect them while training an Iraqi Defence Force that can takeover from the US forces?

Unless... Of course, it's a devious plan to stabilise the region!

[mistermack]

Uh-huh...

But I thought the US troops were only there for the Oil? Why set up an autonomous democracy, give them the power to expel the US troops and then remain there to protect them while training an Iraqi Defence Force that can takeover from the US forces?

Unless... Of course, it's a devious plan to stabilise the region!

No, they WERE only there to get George Bush re-elected. After that they want as much money out of the place as possible.
It's cheaper to have the Iraqis doing more and more of the work, so they have to have an Iraqi govornment and armed forces.
But all those people know they wouldn't last five minutes, without the threat of america to back them up.
And them having the power to expel US troops is just a fiction.
Didn't you read what the State Department said? I suppose I'll have to repeat it, for the slower ones :

State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said the US involvement in Iraq was far from over, but that it would be less intrusive and more civilian focused.

"We are ending the war... but we are not ending our work in Iraq. We have a long-term commitment to Iraq," he told MSNBC
Mr Crowley said the US had a trillion-dollar investment to protect in the country and wanted to honour the memory of the 4,415 US troops who lost their lives in the conflict.

No mention there of "until we are asked to leave". In fact the exact opposite. They are staying "long-term" to protect their investment. There is NO CHANCE of them leaving, till they've got the money. And the only thing Iraq has that's worth any money is oil.
.

[Trolldor]

I'm amazed you can infer so much from what's not written there!

[mistermack]

The US state dept. says it has a "trillion dollar" investment in Iraq to protect.
Where has the money gone? Iraq must be so shiny and new, you can see it shining from the moon. There must be hundreds of state-of-the-art hospitals, water treatment plants, irrigation schemes, electricity generation, gleaming new freeways and research facilities?
I mean, ONE THOUSAND BILLION dollars!!!
The whole country must be lit up like Las Vegas!

But strangely, the media only show bomb damage and shit.
How very strange! It couldn't be that it never left America? That it's been paid to George Bush's business friends? And it's already leaking into his hidden bank accounts and holdings?
Naaaaaaaaaaaaah, it couldn't be that!
.

[Trolldor]

Oh your powers of deduction from absolutely no presented evidence are... astounding.

[mistermack]

Oh your powers of deduction from absolutely no presented evidence are... astounding.

OK whiskers, you ask them where $1000,000,000,000 got spent.
It's a deeeeeeeemocracee, with so-called freedom of information.
Good luck with that!
.

[Pensioner]

Weaknesses in DoD's financial and management controls left it unable to properly account for $8.7 billion of the $9.1 billion in DFI funds it received for reconstruction activities in Iraq. This situation occurred because most DoD organizations receiving DFI funds did not establish the required Department of the Treasury accounts and no DoD organization was designated as the executive agent for managing the use of DFI funds. The breakdown in controls left the funds vulnerable to inappropriate uses and undetected loss.





http://www.sigir.mil/files/audits/10-020.pdf#view=fit

[Ian]

Y'know who's even dumber than Americans? People who say "Americans" like we're all one and the same. People like you. I voted against George W. Bush, thanks.

How could anyone assume that I meant every single american? You're picking a meaning out of what I wrote that you know perfectly well wasn't there.

I was talking about winning an election. Bush won a strong majority the second time round. He conned enough americans to do that.
.

Don't worry about Ian, he can't help himself, just ignore him.

Yeah, I'm quite the fanatic.

So...what does that have to do with anything. I am not a fanatic either and you made the same snide ass comment about me. Oh...wait, whats that??? I AM a fanatic...really!! Because you said so I suppose. Ok, in that case, you are a fanatic as well.

OK Sherlock, I'll explain it to you:

When I made the same comment about you, it was because Mai was discussing flood relief aid to Pakistan, and in you came with a reference to US debt from Afghanistan and Iraq. Guys like you are so pathetic and boring - any opportunity to slap around the US, no matter how indirect or debatable or tangient from the topic at hand, and you just can't help but jump on it. The only person around here who's more of a narrow-brained one-trick pony than you is Gawd.
My comments were neither radical nor off-topic.

[mistermack]

Nice one Pensioner.
That's ten billion accounted for. (or not). Now we have to track down the other 990 billion. Should be some pretty creative accounting in there.

And how do you figure he won a strong majority the 2nd time around? If 3% of Ohio voters picked the other guy in 2004, he would've been a 1-term president.

I was comparing it to the first time round. Anyway, he won 31 states, I think.
And what you mentioned is a 6% swing, hardly insignificant.
He got in the second time, having had 9/11 on his watch, and not caught Bin Laden. The only way he did it was to start two wars, and declare victory in Iraq.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yeh, they're all off home, apart from a mere 50,000 troops, who are just there risking their lives so that the friends of George Bush get paid off on the crooked contracts that they imposed while they were dictators.
They call it a trillion dollar investment. It's atually just a trillion dollar rip-off.
And they said it wasn't about the oil!!
.

Ummm....how is it that George Bush still controls the military and Iraq operations, along with payments on "crooked contracts," now that the good guys have been in power since January, 2009?

good guys? sarcasm detector going off? Damn things not working properly lately.

Yeah, good guys, at least as far as Obama's supporters were chanting in 2008 and 2009. He was going to close Guantanamo (check), bring our troops home by the end of 2009, with the exception of a "small number of troops to secure the embassy" (check), stop warrantless wiretapping, repeal the Patriot Act (or at least its "bad" parts), end rendition to foreign countries for interrogations (check), close CIA overseas prisons (check), fix the economy (check)....oh, wait... "check" means that thing got done.... lol

oh...wait a little bit more...when the US can NOT be at war with anyone for a whole year I'll believe that some change has occurred, till then its business as usual. Some figureheads may be imperialist and some imperialist lite, that's about it.

The US wasn't at war with anyone in 2000.