No Blood for Oil

[Texan]

Washington Times
February 21, 2003
Pg. 23

Let It Flow

Free the Iraqi people -- and their oil

By Mohammed Akacem and Dennis D. Miller

In the aftermath of a U.S.-led war to remove Saddam Hussein's regime, the Bush administration will confront a weighty responsibility: helping Iraqis build new political, social and economic structures. To increase the prospects that post-Saddam Iraq will be both more stable and more prosperous, the United States should announce as soon as possible that it favors the privatization of Iraqi oil.

Nobel Prize laureate Milton Friedman is perhaps privatization's most famous advocate. In 1989, Mr. Friedman wrote: "Who, I ask opponents [of privatization], owns the government enterprises? The answer is, 'The public.' Well, then why not make that into a reality rather than a rhetorical flourish? Set up a private corporation and give each citizen one or one hundred shares in it. Let citizens be free to buy and sell their shares."

Consider the impact - both psychological and strategic -once average Iraqis learned that after Saddam's departure they would not only enjoy freedom for the first time in more than a quarter-century, but also a personal share of Iraq's vast oil wealth. What's more, such a policy would help put to rest the "blood for oil" charge - the suspicion that Washington's motive is to somehow take possession of Iraqi oil.

There are many ways to go about privatization, but the best prospect involves the formation of several private Iraqi oil companies. Registered Iraqi voters - say, citizens over 18 years of age - would then be given an equal number of shares in each of these companies. Corporate governance would be similar to that expected elsewhere in the world. Shareholder power would be in proportion to the total shares any one individual owns.

What if a majority of Iraqis do not understand the privatization process and sell their shares to well-connected former Saddam cronies who amassed wealth during the dictator's corrupt rule?

To protect against such a relapse, laws could be passed to limit the number of shares that any shareholder could buy or sell during a one- or two-year "learning period." Experimental trading in stocks could then occur - without the prospect of losing all of one's shares or of shares quickly concentrating in the hands of a few.

Privatization would serve as a means to help diffuse economic and political power in a post-Saddam Iraq. With millions of Iraqi citizens receiving dividends from private Iraqi oil companies, the benefits of oil income would be dispersed and less susceptible to centralized political control.

A post-Saddam government in need of tax revenues would have to deal with the problem that all democratically elected governments confront: finding an optimal level of taxation, a level that supports the limited and legitimate functions of government but does not stultify economic growth (or endanger the government's re-election prospects).

But that's a good problem for Iraq to grapple with. It's possible that before long, Kurds favoring lower taxes will unite with like-minded Sunnis and Shi'ites against high-tax proponents from those same ethnic groups. In other words, privatization could spur the development of Iraqi political debate not based on ethnicity.

Moreover, successful oil privatization in Iraq could serve as a model to other regimes in the Middle East. One reason that non-democratic governments endure in this troubled region is that, whatever their failures, they maintain their oil income. If other Middle Easterners demand of their governments that they, too, get their fair share of the oil, that will mean less concentration of wealth, leading to less concentration of power and more accountability.

Shared oil wealth, through dividend payments, would enable economic democracy. Every day, Iraqis would cast their dinars - in effect, their votes. That means that the desires of consumers would supercede the propensities of government planners and corrupt politicians. Such consumer sovereignty can be expected to lead to rapid economic growth and job creation, and less poverty and frustration.

It boils down to this: Milton Friedman was right about privatization - and never more so than in regard to what is likely to be the next chapter of Iraq's history. America's policymakers need to act quickly to ensure that after Saddam Hussein, the power really will go to the Iraqi people.

Mohammed Akacem is professor of economics at the Metropolitan State College of Denver. Dennis D. Miller is professor of economics at Baldwin-Wallace College in Ohio. Both are senior fellows of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

[W]

Noone sane is accusing the US of going to war against Iraq to gain posession of their oil. Many sane people are saying that one reason the US is going to war with Iraq is to gain control of their oil.

We'll have no twisting of the truth here.

[Texan]

Originally posted by W
Noone sane is accusing the US of going to war against Iraq to gain posession of their oil. Many sane people are saying that one reason the US is going to war with Iraq is to gain control of their oil.

We'll have no twisting of the truth here.

Most of the people in the United States believe the oil in Iraq should belong to the people of Iraq. I am fairly certain the Bush regime does not plan to take the oil for free and give the Iraqis nothing in return. I suspect if the United States government takes any oil, the Iraqi people will get fair market value for it.

All we ever have here is twisting of the truth. I can't even remember the number of times when posters here said the only reason the U.S. was interested in Iraq was because of the oil. Where were you then?

[W]

Originally posted by Texan
Most of the people in the United States believe the oil in Iraq should belong to the people of Iraq. I am fairly certain the Bush regime does not plan to take the oil for free and give the Iraqis nothing in return. I suspect if the United States government takes any oil, the Iraqi people will get fair market value for it.

All we ever have here is twisting of the truth. I can't even remember the number of times when posters here said the only reason the U.S. was interested in Iraq was because of the oil. Where were you then?

Read what I wrote again. Very carefully.

[Texan]

Originally posted by W
Read what I wrote again. Very carefully.

You said "one reason is to gain control of their oil." Gain control and give it to the Iraqi people might be accurate, but "gain control" is not the whole story.

Take control away from Saddam Hussein is probably more accurate than "gain control."

Noone sane is accusing the US of going to war against Iraq to gain posession of their oil. Many sane people are saying that one reason the US is going to war with Iraq is to take control of their oil away from Saddam Hussein.

[Archi]

If we were in it for CONTROL of the oil. Why didnt we just take it back in 92 when we had everything in place?

[wu_trax]

sounds like a nice plan, but i only belive it happens when it acutally happens. not before.
what i expect to happen is that the oil remains in the control of the goverment (which wasnt all that bad in the past, the people were not that bad off in iraq before 1991, except political freedoms obviously). in that case a pro-us goverment could offer oil to a price below the opec-price. with that policy you could archive a very low oil price and completly ruin the opec, the iraq has more than enough oil to do that.

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
sounds like a nice plan, but i only belive it happens when it acutally happens. not before.
what i expect to happen is that the oil remains in the control of the goverment (which wasnt all that bad in the past, the people were not that bad off in iraq before 1991, except political freedoms obviously). in that case a pro-us goverment could offer oil to a price below the opec-price. with that policy you could archive a very low oil price and completly ruin the opec, the iraq has more than enough oil to do that.

Oil costs what it costs. You have to pay to get it out of the ground. Iraq will sell its oil for a profit. If OPEC has a problem with that, they will reduce the cost.

You are paying something like 1.1 euro per liter for gasoline. The U.S. citizen pays about .22 euro per liter. The extra money in Germany is taxes and does not reflect the actual cost of gasoline.

[inf]

You are all so stupid!

We are part of the worlds biggest feature film, involving conflict with Iraq.

All the world leaders are actors. Did you really think anyone could be as stupid as bush naturally?

[inf]

Originally posted by inf

Did you really think anyone could be as stupid as bush naturally?

(apart from idimmu)

[Gayle29uk]

Sorry Texan, sounds like a scheme to stop a post Hussein Iraq joining OPEC to me. That would piss the US right off.

[BesigedB]

A percentage of the money gained from the sales of Iraqi oil goes to helping the people in the north of the country (cannt remember what they are called).

Also, i'm sure Iraq would be more than happy to sell their oil to the Americans if they wanted it because then they could get bucketloads of money for more weapons.


Or perhaps I'm utterly wrong about my first paragraph, but its what I think I remember.

[inf]

Originally posted by BesigedB
A percentage of the money gained from the sales of Iraqi oil goes to helping the people in the north of the country (cannt remember what they are called).

Iraqi Kurds?

[BesigedB]

Originally posted by inf
Iraqi Kurds?

winner!

[Texan]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Sorry Texan, sounds like a scheme to stop a post Hussein Iraq joining OPEC to me. That would piss the US right off.

If the people of Iraq want to be members of OPEC, that is their call. The United States has been buying oil from OPEC countries for a long time.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
Oil costs what it costs. You have to pay to get it out of the ground. Iraq will sell its oil for a profit. If OPEC has a problem with that, they will reduce the cost.

You are paying something like 1.1 euro per liter for gasoline. The U.S. citizen pays about .22 euro per liter. The extra money in Germany is taxes and does not reflect the actual cost of gasoline.

im not talking about fuel prices. im talking about the price of crude oil per barrel, and it does certainly not cost more than 30$ per barrel to get it out of the ground. without the opec the prices would most likely be below $20 per barrel. why do you think these opec-countries are that rich??
the iraq will be used to reduce the influence of the opec on the prices. if a future iraq-goverment ignores the opec-quotations that will reduce the oil prices.
besides, if the oil companies are completly private, there will be no opec-influence on them what so ever. they would simply ruin the prices for shareholdervalue.

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
im not talking about fuel prices. im talking about the price of crude oil per barrel, and it does certainly not cost more than 30$ per barrel to get it out of the ground. without the opec the prices would most likely be below $20 per barrel. why do you think these opec-countries are that rich??
the iraq will be used to reduce the influence of the opec on the prices. if a future iraq-goverment ignores the opec-quotations that will reduce the oil prices.
besides, if the oil companies are completly private, there will be no opec-influence on them what so ever. they would simply ruin the prices for shareholdervalue.

I think your analysis is false. We can only wait to see what really happens.

OPEC has already begun to lose influence because of oil production in Russia, South America and Africa.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Texan
I think your analysis is false. We can only wait to see what really happens.

OPEC has already begun to lose influence because of oil production in Russia, South America and Africa.

OPEC may no longer be the be all and end all of oil but they're still 'The Daddy' and will be for a lot of years to come.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
I think your analysis is false. We can only wait to see what really happens.

OPEC has already begun to lose influence because of oil production in Russia, South America and Africa.

they still controll about 2/3 of the wrold wide reserves though
(see www.opec.org for info, they got an annoying flash-page so i cant give a direct link)

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Iniluki
Doesn't bush have very close ties to some powerful american oil companies.....

It's also worth noting that one of his first business partners in his own oil business (Arbusto Energy oil) was Salem Bin Laden, elder brother to Osama

[Texan]

Originally posted by Iniluki
Doesn't bush have very close ties to some powerful american oil companies.....

Twist and twist some more....

The U.S. oil companies want sanctions lifted. Keep twisting the truth you sorry bastard.

[Texan]

Originally posted by wu_trax
they still controll about 2/3 of the wrold wide reserves though
(see www.opec.org for info, they got an annoying flash-page so i cant give a direct link)

Liars. Period.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
It's also worth noting that one of his first business partners in his own oil business (Arbusto Energy oil) was Salem Bin Laden, elder brother to Osama

If we killed everyone related to Osama bin Laden, the world would be a better place.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Texan
Twist and twist some more....

The U.S. oil companies want sanctions lifted. Keep twisting the truth you sorry bastard.

Ini: He's right, they do want the sanctions lifted.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Iniluki
Wouldnt lifting sanctions allow the Iraq's to export more oil to the US oil companies?

Hmm

Oil Exec>" How can we get loads of cheap oil?"
Oil Exec2>"I know bomb Iraq and use theirs"
Oil Exec>"Good idea, i'll ring Bush Jnr he owes us a favour since we paid for his election"

Actually the US oil companies want to deals with Iran to extract their oil.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Texan
Liars. Period.

im sorry, i was wrong, its more like 3/4, i only looked at the middle east, but the opec is larger.
http://www.opec.org/Publications/AB/pdf/AB002001.pdf (page 9-10)

[Judge]

The US are quite happy to shed Blood for Oil, as long as it is not US Blood.

Bush is as short sighted as a mole when it comes to world events.

[schenky]

Originally posted by Archi
If we were in it for CONTROL of the oil. Why didnt we just take it back in 92 when we had everything in place?

Yeah right.If you were in it to get rid of Saddam,why didn´t you eliminate him back in 91/92 ?

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by schenky
Yeah right.If you were in it to get rid of Saddam,why didn´t you eliminate him back in 91/92 ?

The UN mandate was only to expel Iraq from Kuwait. I wish you people would make up your minds--do you want us to work with the UN or not?

Also, some people thought that with his army defeated, Saddam would be quickly overthrown. That turned out to be just wishful thinking, however.

[schenky]

Originally posted by Tactitus
The UN mandate was only to expel Iraq from Kuwait. I wish you people would make up your minds--do you want us to work with the UN or not?

I know that and of course "we" want that "you" work with the UN.
But it would have been possible to get rid of him "by accident" for sure.

[Kåre Willoch]

Originally posted by Texan
Twist and twist some more....

The U.S. oil companies want sanctions lifted. Keep twisting the truth you sorry bastard.

-----------

The US oil companies want sanctions lifted so they can buy Iraqi oil, Bush wants to bomb Iraq so the oil can be bought without a security risk.

Bottom line, the US wants cheap oil, the companies prefer to just buy it from whoever offers, the US government prefers to have control of the countries they buy from....

And the press releases from the oil-companys aren't exactly bound to reveal the true opinions of the company execs you know. Blood for oil is rather an old slogan that they want to get rid of. It's not like they'd say "we want a war with Iraq, so we can take over their oil fields and make good money" if that was their opinion..

[Terra Australis]

Originally posted by BesigedB
A percentage of the money gained from the sales of Iraqi oil goes to helping the people in the north of the country (cannt remember what they are called).

Also, i'm sure Iraq would be more than happy to sell their oil to the Americans if they wanted it because then they could get bucketloads of money for more weapons.


Or perhaps I'm utterly wrong about my first paragraph, but its what I think I remember.

The Iraqi's do not look after the Kurds at all, they hate them, Saddam hates them.

These are the people that he used the Chemical weapons on.
At the moment they are tolerated, as they are under the umbrella of the No Fly zone that was established by the U.N after the ceasefire of the first gulf war.

The Iraqi's are still exporting there oil through Kurdish territory, and the Kurds are taxing this. The oil is exported through Turkey, and then on to Europe.

Here is the story that was shown on 60 Minutes in Australia last week.

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/s.../story_757.asp

[Ulysses]

Originally posted by Terra Australis

Here is the story that was shown on 60 Minutes in Australia last week.

Well, if it was on 60 Minutes, it must be true?

[Scoot951]

Originally posted by Texan
If we killed everyone related to Osama bin Laden, the world would be a better place.

Heh, most of his many siblings have actually gone to the extent of changing the spelling of their last name so as to not appear related to him. He's very much the black sheep of the family.

[Texan]

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
-----------

The US oil companies want sanctions lifted so they can buy Iraqi oil, Bush wants to bomb Iraq so the oil can be bought without a security risk.

Bottom line, the US wants cheap oil, the companies prefer to just buy it from whoever offers, the US government prefers to have control of the countries they buy from....

And the press releases from the oil-companys aren't exactly bound to reveal the true opinions of the company execs you know. Blood for oil is rather an old slogan that they want to get rid of. It's not like they'd say "we want a war with Iraq, so we can take over their oil fields and make good money" if that was their opinion..

People who live in "in front of PC" also want cheap oil. They just don't care if women and children starve to death in the countries where they get the cheap oil. People in "in front of PC" are more than happy to see dead women and children. Dead women and children is what they want. They say they want no blood for oil, but they want blood for oil. They just want blood taken by Hussein, rather than blood taken by the United States.

"Dead children in Iraq means cheap oil for us. Hooray."

[Ulysses]

Originally posted by Texan
"Dead children in Iraq means cheap oil for us. Hooray."

You need help.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by Texan
People who live in "in front of PC" also want cheap oil. They just don't care if women and children starve to death in the countries where they get the cheap oil. People in "in front of PC" are more than happy to see dead women and children. Dead women and children is what they want. They say they want no blood for oil, but they want blood for oil. They just want blood taken by Hussein, rather than blood taken by the United States.

I don't care about oil. I don't drive a car, and I think there should be more research into hydrogen/methane/methanol fuel cells.

[Ulysses]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I don't care about oil. I don't drive a car, and I think there should be more research into hydrogen/methane/methanol fuel cells.

Or compressed air?

oooooooooooo

[MrL_JaKiri]

No.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Terra Australis
The Iraqi's do not look after the Kurds at all, they hate them, Saddam hates them.

<snip>

The Kurds don't consider themselves part of Iraq. they consider Kurdistan to be an independant country and refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of Baghdad.

US president Abraham Lincoln had a similar situation if you recall, he kinda got pissed off at the confederacy and sent his army to deal with them.

King George III also became a tad miffed by some ungrateful buggers wanting independence in 1775 (the USA for the historically challenged) and decided killing them was the solution.

Now, bearing in mind the US and UK did exactly the same as Hussein (different weapons, same result) how can anyone get on a moral high horse over the Kurds?

[Terra Australis]

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
The Kurds don't consider themselves part of Iraq. they consider Kurdistan to be an independant country and refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of Baghdad.

US president Abraham Lincoln had a similar situation if you recall, he kinda got pissed off at the confederacy and sent his army to deal with them.

King George III also became a tad miffed by some ungrateful buggers wanting independence in 1775 (the USA for the historically challenged) and decided killing them was the solution.

Now, bearing in mind the US and UK did exactly the same as Hussein (different weapons, same result) how can anyone get on a moral high horse over the Kurds?

The kurds were viewed as second rate citizens by the goverment of Iraq..... and that they had no right to live there, and were to be disposed of.

The fact that the Kurds fought and stayed there, also did you read the link i posted, the way that the Kurds have been treated by the government of Iraq it is no wonder that they want to be independent of Saddam and his cohorts.


The U.S civil war was largely about slavery, the people in the south wanted to retain slavery, and actually started the war by attacking a Pro U.S fortification that was in the southern states.

As for the poms, well the U.S was too good of a thing to lose, think of how large and resource rich the U.S is compared to the size of the U.K

[Texan]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I don't care about oil. I don't drive a car, and I think there should be more research into hydrogen/methane/methanol fuel cells.

Of course, oil is used in more things than just cars.

I agree that the west should be doing more research on alternative methods of producing energy. The west is doing a lot of research now, but the priority should be raised.

Originally posted by schenky
Yeah right.If you were in it to get rid of Saddam,why didn´t you eliminate him back in 91/92 ?

Think about it; if we knocked out Saddam, all of the neighboring countries would be fighting over the land for years to come... Why we're doing it now though? I'm not sure, seems like the same thing will happen.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Texan
Most of the people in the United States believe the oil in Iraq should belong to the people of Iraq. I am fairly certain the Bush regime does not plan to take the oil for free and give the Iraqis nothing in return. I suspect if the United States government takes any oil, the Iraqi people will get fair market value for it.

That plan is a perfectly good one, but I've not heard any administration official mention it.

Moreover, I'm wondering where Milty was when I wanted a share of the US oil supply.

Originally posted by Texan
All we ever have here is twisting of the truth. I can't even remember the number of times when posters here said the only reason the U.S. was interested in Iraq was because of the oil. Where were you then?

'truth twisting.' hmmm.

Anti-war types claim that once the war is over, existing Iraqi oil contracts with Russia and France will be ignored, and US companies will get the new contracts. They follow up by saying that we might not be attacking Iraq if it wasn't for their oil supply (not claiming that there aren't other valid reasons to invade).

Pro-war types say "that isn't true, the Iraqi people will get control of the supply after the war," which is a reply to the claim that...ummm...the claim that...yeah.

Who was twisting the truth again?

[Texan]

Originally posted by acropolis
That plan is a perfectly good one, but I've not heard any administration official mention it.

Perhaps you were not listening closely enough.

Reuters Article
"And if the coalition of forces goes into those oil fields, we would want to protect those fields and make sure they are used to benefit the people of Iraq and are not destroyed or damaged by the failing regime on the way out the door," Secretary of State Colin Powell told NBC's 'Meet the Press.' "Revenue generated from the oilfields would be used "in accordance with international law and to benefit the people of Iraq," he added.

Moreover, I'm wondering where Milty was when I wanted a share of the US oil supply.
'truth twisting.' hmmm.

If you move to Alaska, you can get money from the state oil revenues, rather than pay state taxes.

Anti-war types claim that once the war is over, existing Iraqi oil contracts with Russia and France will be ignored, and US companies will get the new contracts. They follow up by saying that we might not be attacking Iraq if it wasn't for their oil supply (not claiming that there aren't other valid reasons to invade).

The anti-war types might be right, and they might be wrong. That is the problem with trying to foretell the future. The United States might be planning to attack (or maybe just put pressure on) Iraq because it is a destabilizing influence on an important region of the world. It did conquer Kuwait and threaten Saudia Arabia, two important U.S. allies. If the United States is only interested in oil, then explain Kosovo, South Korea, Somalia, Bosnia and others ad infinitum.

Pro-war types say "that isn't true, the Iraqi people will get control of the supply after the war," which is a reply to the claim that...ummm...the claim that...yeah.

The United States is only there to kill innocent women and children, and steal the oil from the legal owner, Saddam Hussein?

Who was twisting the truth again?

I would say you were. Perhaps we see different truths, but...
1. Colin Powell, a member of the administration said it.
2. You CAN get oil money in the United States.
3. Foretelling the future is still not an accurate science.
4. The United States does not kill women and children in country A to steal something from them that can be bought in countries B, C, D, E and F.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Texan
Perhaps you were not listening closely enough.

Reuters Article
"And if the coalition of forces goes into those oil fields, we would want to protect those fields and make sure they are used to benefit the people of Iraq and are not destroyed or damaged by the failing regime on the way out the door," Secretary of State Colin Powell told NBC's 'Meet the Press.' "Revenue generated from the oilfields would be used "in accordance with international law and to benefit the people of Iraq," he added.

I'm not sure how an article that makes no reference to a private shares plan supports the claim that administration officials are seriously entertaining the idea of a private shares plan.

More so, an article in which the administration goes on the record as saying that protecting the oil fields for immediate use after the war is a major priority in our attack can not really be used to say that the government is not interested in Iraqi oil.

But I will come out right now and say that I think the invasion will be beneficial to the Iraqi people (the ones that don't die ofc).

Originally posted by Texan
[b]
If you move to Alaska, you can get money from the state oil revenues, rather than pay state taxes.

This is interesting and I didn't know it. ta for that.

Originally posted by Texan
[b]
The anti-war types might be right, and they might be wrong. That is the problem with trying to foretell the future. The United States might be planning to attack (or maybe just put pressure on) Iraq because it is a destabilizing influence on an important region of the world. It did conquer Kuwait and threaten Saudia Arabia, two important U.S. allies. If the United States is only interested in oil, then explain Kosovo, South Korea, Somalia, Bosnia and others ad infinitum.

The only bit about the future they are trying to foretell there is about the contracts with the Russians and French. And the administration has specified that those will not be honored under the new government. But again, I don't call accusing the president of attempting to do what he claims to be attempting to do "twisting the truth."

To explain all those others, at no point did the US invade a country that had not attacked us with the intention of replacing the existing government.

Originally posted by Texan
[b]
The United States is only there to kill innocent women and children, and steal the oil from the legal owner, Saddam Hussein?

CAPTAIN STRAW MAN TO THE RESCUE!!

but I have no idea where that even came from, or what it is referring to. All I said is that the standard pro-war response avoids actually referring to the proper anti-war arguments by sidestepping and throwing out an unrelated straw man to squash.

And your response managed to avoid making any argument against what I said by sidestepping and throwing out an unrelated straw man to squash.

Did you all go to the same seminar or something?

I would say you were. Perhaps we see different truths, but...
1. Colin Powell, a member of the administration said it.
He said something unrelated to any private shares plan.
2. You CAN get oil money in the United States.
Ta for that.
3. Foretelling the future is still not an accurate science.
But claiming that someone is going to try to do what they claim they are trying to do can't really be called 'truth twisting'
4. The United States does not kill women and children in country A to steal something from them that can be bought in countries B, C, D, E and F.
I should hope not. But it doesn't really relate.