Schoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 27 Posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1015 times:
"Representatives of The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and Government Accountability Project (GAP) today urged Congress to investigate - and repeal - an executive order signed by President George W. Bush that gives sweeping powers to U.S. oil companies operating in Iraq.
The two public interest organizations charged that President Bush far overreached a May 22, 2003, United Nations resolution that was designed to protect Iraqi oil revenues for humanitarian purposes when he signed an executive order that could place U.S. corporations above the law for any activities "related to" Iraqi oil, either in Iraq or domestically. Bush signed Executive Order 13303 the same day that the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1483, which sets up a development fund, from Iraqi oil revenues, for "humanitarian purposes.
"This order reveals the true motivation for the present occupation: absolute power for U.S. corporate interests over Iraqi oil," said IPS Senior Researcher Jim Vallette. "This is the smoking gun that proves the Bush administration always intended to free corporate investments, not the Iraqi people."
In terms of legal liability, the Executive Order cancels the concept of corporate accountability and abandons the rule of law," charged Tom Devine, legal director of the Government Accountability Project. "It is a blank check for corporate anarchy, potentially robbing Iraqis of both their rights and their resources."
"In addition to an exemption for ecological accidents, the UN order had restricted immunity to the point of initial sale. Bush grants Iraqi oil a lifetime exemption provided US companies are involved in the oil's production, transport, or distribution. His order applies to Iraqi oil products that are "in the United States, hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons." Under U.S. law, corporations are "persons." Executive Order 13303 means that if oil companies establish separate corporations to handle Iraqi oil, they may be able to escape liability entirely." (http://www.seen.org/BushEO.shtml)
A legal analysis of the Executive Order (EO) states that "the scope of the EO's mandate for lawlessness is limited only by the imagination". This analysis can be found at http://www.seen.org/GAPEO.pdf
So explain me again this war has nothing to do with oil!
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
Teva From France, joined Jan 2001, 1869 posts, RR: 16 Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 973 times:
Welfare and freedom of the Iraki people was the priority. Oil was not the priority...
Please, if this is true, how do you explain that:
1) the only official building protected in Bagdad was the ministery of oil.
2) After the first war, it took Saddam only a few weeks to restore water and electricity in the country. And today, after a few month, thousand of Irakis don't have those basics?
It is not that I love Saddam, or that I try to excuse him. However, I am surpized by the facts.
By the way, I think that giving everyone water and electricity would save a lot of US troops lives, and that they would be better accepted if showing efforts in the reconstruction.
Ecoute les orgues, Elles jouent pour toi...C'est le requiem pour un con
BigPhilNYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4075 posts, RR: 55 Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 961 times:
"But BigPhilNYC, do you now support the fact that the Iraqis are being robbed of their resources?"
[sarcasm]Yeah, because Saddam was giving SO MUCH of his oil earnings back to the people[/sarcasm]
We don't even HAVE the oil yet, so don't assume what we are going to do with the money. No one has stoeln anything. I MIGHT happen, I can't deny it, but wait until it does before you say things like that.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 948 times:
No it was not about oil.
Just because self-proclaimed expert "legal directors" of left-wing institutes say so does not make it true or even close to true. Iraq needs hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuilt. That money will have to come from Iraqi oil.
Iraq's infrastructure is constantly being sabotaged by fedayeen. In addition to the bounties on US servicemen and women, there are bounties for acts of sabotage.
Cyril B From France, joined Jun 2001, 396 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 898 times:
Iraq needs hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuilt. That money will have to come from Iraqi oil.
What do you mean when you say "rebuilt" ??
If you mean "making Iraq a prosperous democracy"? That's impossible in a short time (5-10 years), like it is impossible in Afghanistan.
You cannot "bring" prosperity and democracy to a country, like Bush pretends to think.
According to you, the US government will take the oil and use it to pay reconstruction... but reconstruction contracts will go to US companies, so in the end it will be a huge amount of money taken from Iraq and given to US companies.. (companies like the ones funding Bush for his campaigns I guess...)
So the "reconstruction" of Iraq will only benefit the US economy, and I bet that in a ten years time, Iraq would still be a third-world country...
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 888 times:
According to you, the US government will take the oil and use it to pay reconstruction... but reconstruction contracts will go to US companies, so in the end it will be a huge amount of money taken from Iraq and given to US companies.
Uh, Cyril... That money will buy goods and services with which Iraq can start financing their own development, so it does not soley benefit US companies. Would you prefer they hire French companies? It would make no difference. But then again, French companies did not contribute to the liberation of the country as did American companies (through taxes), so why should they get any extra business?
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 875 times:
Reconstruction contracts will probably go to US, British, Italian, Spanish, Bahrain, and Qatari firms that are capable of infrastructure projects. Roads, bridges, schools and the like will be built using Iraqi labor and materials. This will make Iraq and its economy better off.
It would be worth your time to read up on the difference between the creation of wealth and the transfer of wealth. The US aims to make Iraq a creator of wealth. Just like it did for Western Europe and Japan immediately after WWII.
Saddam impoverished his own country and let it fall apart for his own gain. It will take a long time to rebuild Iraq. It took Japan about 15 years to really get back on its feet after WWII. I expect it will take at least that long for Iraq to begin resembling its pre-1980 or so status.
"So the "reconstruction" of Iraq will only benefit the US economy,"
Schoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 27 Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 864 times:
"[I]f ExxonMobil or ChevronTexaco touch Iraqi oil, it will be immune from legal proceedings in the United States. Anything that could go, and elsewhere has gone, awry with U.S. corporate oil operations will be immune to judgment: a massive tanker accident; an explosion at an oil refinery; the employment of slave labor to build a pipeline; murder of locals by corporate security; the release of billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The president, with a stroke of the pen, signed away the rights of Saddam's victims, creditors and of the next true Iraqi government to be compensated through legal action. Bush's order unilaterally declares Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. corporations." (at http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8466 Sorry, N79969, but somehow no right-wing site seems to worry about this news).
"It can also be read as an incentive program to get U.S. industry involved..."
True, but then why only grant total immunity to US oil companies? Surely, the reconstruction of Iraq will also need electrical engineering, road- and bridge builders, companies to re-build hospitals, etc. One thing is protecting the revenues of the Iraqi oil sales that are supposed to be used to actually rebuild Iraq, another thing is protecting the oil-companies which are only providing ways to finance the rebuilding itself.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 861 times:
You have to start finding sources and "experts" which are not hopelessly partisan. Without the E.O., these institutions you love to cite would sue and file motions against oil companies endlessly and thus would hamstring the reconstruction of Iraq for years. While the limousine liberals in this country and their amen corner in Europe would gloat in their self-satisfaction, Iraqi would not be rebuilt and the people would suffer.
The construction of hospitals, bridges, and so on is not nearly as capital intensive as the oil business. Developing an oil field often requires multi-billion dollar expenditures well before a single dollar of revenue can be realized. In other words, the risks are inherently enormous. The EO seems to be good policy and the articles you cite were written by rabid conspiracy theorists.
"Without the E.O., these institutions you love to cite would sue and file motions against oil companies endlessly and thus would hamstring the reconstruction of Iraq for years. "
Like I said above, I agree these monies need to be protected in some way to assure they go to the reconstruction of Iraq. What I still don't understand, and none of the replies so far has been able to explain this, is why US oil companies are all of a sudden IMMUNE for any legal action WHATSOEVER regarding not only Iraqi oil, but also their products and the transport and distribution of these! Surely, if Bush wants to protect all US companies involved in the reconstruction of Iraq from 'the institutions I love to cite', his legal people could have worked out a EO regarding ALL US companies involved!
"The EO seems to be good policy and the articles you cite were written by rabid conspiracy theorists."
Read the FACTS contained in the EO itself. No conspiracy theories there, I'm affraid, just plain FACTS approved by Dubya himself.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
Super Em From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 437 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 818 times:
I thought it was about disarming Saddam? When no one believed he was an imminent threat, the American Government switched the war to liberating Iraq. Here's a quick fact. The war was originally called Operation Iraqi Liberation. Once they saw it was too obvious it was changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 814 times:
Saddam Who's Sane(?) was an ANIMAL and needed to be removed. THAT is why I supported the war.
Amazing, BigPhil, that you could support the war for a reason that was NEVER given until after the war started. George Bush said, BEFORE THE WAR, that it was about the threat of WMD's, of nukes, of an Iraqi tie with Al Qaeda.
Just because we're the U.S. doesn't mean we can go to war just to remove a leader we don't like. I would NEVER support a war for that justification. And besides, that reason was not given, until after shots were fired.
sarcasm]Yeah, because Saddam was giving SO MUCH of his oil earnings back to the people[/sarcasm]
And now, we're doing on better-diverting the profit for other purposes besides the Iraqi people. How does that make us any better?
I don't believe oil was the driving force, but I'm not as naive as some on here to think oil had absolutely nothing to do with it, either.
Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and
Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest
By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of
America, including the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)
(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601
et seq.), section 5 of the United Nations Participation
Act, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c) (UNPA), and section
301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of
America, find that the threat of attachment or other
judicial process against the Development Fund for Iraq,
Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests
therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any financial
instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or
related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests
therein, obstructs the orderly reconstruction of Iraq,
the restoration and maintenance of peace and security
in the country, and the development of political,
administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq. This
situation constitutes an unusual and extraordinary
threat to the national security and foreign policy of
the United States and I hereby declare a national
emergency to deal with that threat.
I hereby order:
Section 1. Unless licensed or otherwise authorized
pursuant to this order, any attachment, judgment,
decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial
process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and
void, with respect to the following:
(a) the Development Fund for Iraq, and
(b) all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and
interests therein, and proceeds, obligations, or any
financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising
from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and
interests therein, in which any foreign country or a
national thereof has any interest, that are in the
United States, that hereafter come within the United
States, or that are or hereafter come within the
possession or control of United States persons.
Sec. 2. (a) As of the effective date of this order,
Executive Order 12722 of August 2, 1990, Executive
Order 12724 of August 9, 1990, and Executive Order
13290 of March 20, 2003, shall not apply to the
property and interests in property described in section
1 of this order.
(b) Nothing in this order is intended to affect the
continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations,
orders, licenses or other forms of administrative
action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore
or hereafter under Executive Orders 12722, 12724, or
13290, or under the authority of IEEPA or the UNPA,
except as hereafter terminated, modified, or suspended
by the issuing Federal agency and except as provided in
section 2(a) of this order.
Sec. 3. For the purposes of this order:
(a) The term ``person'' means an individual or
(b) The term ``entity'' means a partnership,
association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group,
subgroup, or other organization;
(c) The term ``United States person'' means any
United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity
organized under the laws of the United
States or any jurisdiction within the United States
(including foreign branches), or any person in the
(d) The term ``Iraqi petroleum and petroleum
products'' means any petroleum, petroleum products, or
natural gas originating in Iraq, including any Iraqi-
origin oil inventories, wherever located; and
(e) The term ``Development Fund for Iraq'' means
the fund established on or about May 22, 2003, on the
books of the Central Bank of Iraq, by the Administrator
of the Coalition Provisional Authority responsible for
the temporary governance of Iraq and all accounts held
for the fund or for the Central Bank of Iraq in the
name of the fund.
Sec. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, in
consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such
actions, including the promulgation of rules and
regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the
President by IEEPA and the UNPA as may be necessary to
carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of
the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to
other officers and agencies of the United States
Government. All agencies of the United States
Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate
measures within their statutory authority to carry out
the provisions of this order.
(b) Nothing contained in this order shall relieve a
person from any requirement to obtain a license or
other authorization in compliance with applicable laws
Sec. 5. This order is not intended to, and does not,
create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party
against the United States, its departments, agencies,
entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other
Sec. 6. This order shall be transmitted to the Congress
and published in the Federal Register.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 764 times:
Well, shoot, that seems pretty clear (without refering to the referenced codes and orders). This order vacates the previous orders from 1990 which made any oil trade with Iraq illegal after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and grants a few incentives to companies to start trading with Iraq. What's wrong with that?
Zauberfloete From Austria, joined Nov 2000, 302 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 752 times:
There is nothing wrong with that Charles. But if you are a communist like Schoenorama, there is nothing else you could provide to underline your point.
The "no blood for oil" slogans where plain stupid in 1991, and they don't get more intelligent now.
The Iraq war of 2003 was not for oil, and it was not for WMD allone.
All of us know the speech of Pres. Bush in front of the UN, and all of us know the violations of UN resolutions by Iraq. Iraqs former dictatorship violated all UN resolutions (and they where not all about WMD). Bushs speech in front of the UN, and if you will the US and British "case for war", was not only about WMD, but about the iraqi regime as a hole.
The target of that war was "regime change", nothing more or less.
As I understood it, the white house repeated that again and again.
The main target of the war, to remove the old regime from power has been achieved. (Saddam is alive and on the run, but not in power)
The US government will not steal iraqs oil, but it will try to run iraqs oil business as long as there is no iraqi government in power to do it.
"Rebuilding" iraq will take time, but it will work. I have a problem with the word "rebuild". It suggest that only that is reconstructed that has been destroyed by war. That is not the case.
The need to rebuild infrastructure is there because Saddam loved to spend money for palaces, and not for infrastructure.
Saddam wasted the money of the iraqi people to build his useless palaces, and to buy weapons (from Russia, France, China, Egypt, Germany...to name the most important suppliers).
Schoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 27 Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 745 times:
"What's wrong with that?"
Why are US oil companies given TOTAL IMMUNITY? Does the reconstruction of Iraq really make it necessary that US oil companies are given TOTAL LIBERTY to do WHATEVER they like, both in Iraq as in the US? Imagine Exxon does decide to 'divert some Iraqi oil and oil monies for their own profits. With this order, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING could be done about it, not in Iraq nor in the US. Now we all know, after what happened with ENRON, that even multi-million dollar corporations can't be trusted blindly.
"There is nothing wrong with that Charles. But if you are a communist like Schoenorama, there is nothing else you could provide to underline your point."
I guess you missed the A.net warning at the top of the non-av forums: "Do not post in here unless you are capable of expressing yourself in a civilized manner."
As long as you are not capable of expressing you self in a civilized manner, I see no point in starting a discussion with you, comrade.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 738 times:
Where does it say total immunity? It says immunity to judgements perhaps passed prior to this Order (such as some oil company lawsuit against Iraq a few years ago claiming damages due to the embargo), but other judgements may be valid as long as the Order is taken into account. In the case of a gross miscarriage, the judiciary and congress can force the issue as well. It appears one of the main purposes for this Order is to protect the Iraq Development Fund and Iraqi oil revenues from attempts by certain people to make money off of the situation by suing Iraq for damages.