Would Dems be willing to risk oil rights in Iraq pullout?

[yurbud]

When the Bush administration invaded Iraq, cancelled Saddam's contracts with foreign oil companies, gave them to American companies, and restructured Iraq's oil industry to their specifications, so they could profit from pumping it and restrict the flow to set the price high.

Gen. Jay Garner, first colonial governor of Iraq, said on camera that pursuing the privatization of Iraq's oil would incite a rebellion against the occupation. He was right. Of course, without seizing the oil, there would have been no war.

It goes without saying that the overwhelming majority of Republicans will do exactly what the oil companies tell them, but what about Democrats? Would they be willing to risk American companies losing those oil profits even though doing so would benefit the vast majority of Americans and save our troops lives?

Timeline of US oil plans for Iraq:
http://www.gregpalast.com/iraqmeetingstimeline.html

Detailed report on restructuring of Iraq's oil industry to benefit our oil companies:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesi...


Palast on keeping price up:
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/03/bbcs-greg...

DSM confirmation when Bush tells Putin war won't increase Iraq production and lower price:
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/04/new-dsm-b...

These actions are bald-faced war crimes. You can't invade a country and then steal.

Economic war crimes in Geneva and Hague Conventions:

The Hague Convention of 1907 (IV) see articles 47, 53, 55
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/195?OpenDocument

The Geneva Convention of 1949 (IV) we've broken almost every section of article 147, and Bush has personally broken article 148.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument

[stray cat]

1. Are Americans willing to live with gas at $5/gallon?

[yurbud]

4. in case you haven't noticed, we're getting that anyway

the oil companies aren't repaying our gift with lower prices at the pump, in fact, Greg Palast's research found that the goal of the war was partly to keep Saddam from flooding the market with cheap oil after sanctions came off, which seemed to be confirmed by a DSM when Bush sent assurances to Putin that invading Iraq would NOT result in higher output and lower prices. I beleive I put the links on that in my original post.

In the 1930s, the US was the Saudi Arabia of oil. How much did it help the average American then?

This isn't for our benefit at all.

Or did we invade and takeover Hawaii and Central America to insure our strategic supply of cheap fruit?

[guinivere]

2. As sad as it is, I had to go with No.

[yurbud]

8. based on past performance, you're probably right.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. We'll be paying the Iraqi's price for oil when they finish kicking us out.

[yurbud]

5. will they treat us worse than oil companies already are?

[lisainmilo]

6. YES!!!!!! Let the patents begin!!

I, as a democrat would gladly give up the oil.....this would allow new patents to start for oil free , clean burning automobiles to begin. It may cause the new hybrids to be readily available at affordable prices....start the competition.....create new jobs .......lets not be short-sighted....Would corporate america allow this???? hmmmmm....not sure about that part.

[yurbud]

7. they would shoot the donkey in your avatar if they thought

he was serious competition to oil.

[welshTerrier2]

9. i would like to defend the Democrats on this ...

it pains me to say it but i just don't see how i can ...

from day one, the whole bush agenda has been about oil ... and frankly, it goes back for decades ... it's not just bush and the neocons ... the US has intervened in the internal affairs of sovereign nations for generations ... it's almost always been about oil ...

some have talked about "windfall" profit taxes ... here's a hint: oil profits created from a war designed to destabilize OPEC are not "windfalls" ... a "windfall" is an unintended result; there's nothing unintended about Big Oil's record profits ...

have the Democrats been challenging bush's motives for invading Iraq? i never hear them do that ... they question his tactics or his failed oversight of spending or a million other screw ups ... they even question the lies he used to lead us to war ... but they NEVER QUESTION WHY he wanted to invade Iraq ... in spite of all the lies, the Dems seem to accept the idea that bush's real motives were legitimate ...

the fact that Dems don't talk about the OIL GRAB in Iraq leads me to believe they are either complicit in the process or are too afraid to speak the truth ... i truly wish i didn't see the war and the oil grab this way; it's hard to see it any other way though ...

[Lindacooks]

10. I thought there wasn't much oil coming out of Iraq now.

Will it make that much of a difference?

I know there's a lot of oil THERE, but since pretty much all the infrastructure was destroyed in 2003, what are we really losing?

[yurbud]

11. we lose nothing. Whoever pumps it will want to sell to us. US oil

companies lose.

Also, the current turmoil is jacking prices up, so they make more money WITHOUT pumping more oil.

[dharmabum65]

12. Its sad that the Democrats are afraid to speak the truth on this issue

I would gladly have Iraq renationalize its oil reserves,and take away the immoral profits from our thuggish oil companies.The Democrats unwillingness to proclaim the fact that we have stolen Iraq's oil,and should return it to them is very disheartening,and makes them look like they are either complicit in the process or just plain cowardly and compliant.

[yurbud]

13. Can you imagine what would happen if they recentered the debate on this?

How many of our troops have to die so oil companies can profit?

The right people publicly asking the question and giving some of the background on what happened with the oil would end the war.