最新ニュース | フォーラム | イギリスのニュース | 米国のニュース | 全体的なニュース | 政治ニュース | Sci技術のニュース | 戦争及びテロリズムのニュース | スポーツのニュース | マルチメディア | ホームページを置きなさい

新しい! RINFの本屋 | RINF DVDの店

翻訳しなさい:

水曜日、2008年7月2日

あなた自身の現実を作成しなさいか。 露出される潜在意識の秘密 決して再度にあってはいけない! 知るために仮定されない何を

によって ビルヴァンAuken | イラクの政体が形式的に国の開発を再開する外国の製油会社に値をつけることを開けたようにか。sオイルの富、それはこと米国明らかにされたか。顧問か。 大きい米国エネルギー集塊に引き締まるプロシージャを起草し、優先取り引きを操縦することの先導的な役割を担った。

か。小さい国務省のチームによって導かれたアメリカの顧問のグループはイラクの最も大きい分野のいくつかを開発するためにイラクの政府と5人の西部の製油会社間の契約の作成の役割を果したか。 ニューヨーク・タイムズ 報告された月曜日。

提供される政府弁護士および民間部門のコンサルタントのチームか。契約の起草の詳しい提案、か。 時 報告される、年長の国務省の役人を引用する。

他の中か。サービスか。 契約に基づいて2003年3月の米国の侵入の前にイラクの政府とロシアの製油会社Lukoilによるイラクオイルの大臣によって退去させた要求が署名したことを米国の顧問によって提供されて確認していた。

時 続けられる: か。それはどの位影響が仕事に大臣であったか明白でないか。sの決定。か。

それについて明白でない何もない。 米国の政府はバグダッドが前にセクターを36年国有にした前にエクソンモービル、貝、BP、合計およびシェブロンを持ち帰るために置かれる言葉イラクの石油生産を支配した同じ多国籍エネルギー巨人を非常に定めた。 小さい会社の借款団と共にそれらは、イラクの政府によって、値をつけた契約の提供された。

$500,000,000の価値を持つこれらのいわゆるテクニカルサポートの一致は、それぞれ、それらにロシア、中国、インドからの対立会社上の決定的な利点を与える主要な西部オイル会社のためのドアのフィートを他の所で表し。

イラクはもう112兆立方フィートのガスと115,000,000,000バレルの粗野な予備を証明した。 東のロシアそしてカザフスタンからの西のベネズエラそしてボリビアへの他の国家が、エネルギー資源の印象的でより堅い国民制御である条件の下で、イラクの米国の職業は大きいオイルの並ぶものがない利益の富鉱帯のための潜在性を開発した。

これは初めの米国の侵入の主な目標だったこと否定することがますます不可能になっている。 約うそすべての後ろか。大量破壊兵器か。 and supposed ties between Baghdad and Al Qaeda, the US war was about reinstating the domination of the US-based oil giants over the world?s third largest petroleum reserves and blocking access to them by their foreign rivals.

Domination of strategic energy resources and their utilization to further Washington?s increasingly desperate struggle to preserve its global economic hegemony were the real reasons that, as of Monday, 4,113 US troops have lost their lives, with nearly 30,000 more having returned from Iraq wounded, many of them grievously.

These predatory strategic aims, and the related profit interests of the oil conglomerates, are the sole justification for the slaughter of more than one million Iraqis and the transformation of nearly five million more into exiles or internal refugees.

The determination of both major political parties and the US ruling establishment as a whole to pursue this criminal war, whatever their tactical differences, was underscored Monday with President George W. Bush?s signing into law another $162 billion war funding bill, sent to his desk by the Democratic leadership of the US Congress.

Bush praised the Democrats in Congress for having ?agreed to provide these vital funds without tying the hands of our commanders, and without an artificial timetable of withdrawal from Iraq.?

As in the past, Bush portrayed the funding for the war as an act of support for the ?brave men and women, who … risk their lives to defeat our adversaries and to keep our country safe.?

What lies! This funding will pay to ensure the sacrifice of more US soldiers and Marines and the killing of far greater numbers of Iraqi civilians to ensure US domination of Iraqi oil and vast new profit streams for Exxon Mobil, Shell, Chevron and the other major energy companies.

Moreover, the Democratic Congressional leadership has crafted the spending package?which brings the total amount spent thus far on the war to over $650 billion?so that it pays for the war through the first six months of the next administration. Their aim was to get the issue off the political agenda well before the November election?allowing them to better posture as opponents of the war?while at the same time sparing an incoming Democratic administration led by Barack Obama from having to seek new money for this vastly unpopular war during its first months in office.

The nakedly colonial character of the oil deals now being pushed by the administration has provoked murmurs of criticism from sections of the Democratic Party.

Democratic Senators Charles Schumer of New York, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Claire McCaskill of Missouri released a letter addressed to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week urging her to block the no-bid contracts. As the Associated Press reported, the Democrats feared the agreements ?could fan the perception that US involvement in Iraq was motivated by oil.? In other words, the agreements are so blatant that they give the entire game away.

The Democratic senators called for any contracts to be postponed until the Iraqi regime succeeds in passing a long-delayed hydrocarbon law, working out such thorny issues as the precise role that the foreign oil firms will play in the country and how revenues accruing to Iraq are to be divided between the federal government and various regional entities.

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has failed to pass the bill for the past year and a half. The legislation has been stalemated in large measure because of the overwhelming popular opposition within Iraq to the return of the major oil companies that are so closely identified with the country?s history of semi-colonial subjugation.

?We urge you to persuade the (government of Iraq) to refrain from signing contracts with multinational oil companies until a hydrocarbon law is in effect in Iraq,? read the Democrats? letter to Rice. ?We fear that any such agreements signed by Iraq?s Hydrocarbon Ministry without an equitable revenue-sharing agreement in place would simply add more fuel to Iraq?s civil war.?

The Bush administration made it clear, however, that it had less concern about giving Washington?s imperialist venture on behalf of big oil a fig leaf of legality.

?Since the United States had no involvement in this, I?m not sure on what basis the United States could … block the Iraqi government from contracting in the way it sees fit,? State Department spokesman Tom Casey told the media.

Similarly, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino commented, ?Iraq is a sovereign country, and it can make decisions based on how it feels that it wants to move forward in its development of its oil resources.? She added: ?And if that means that our companies here in the United States can compete and win business, then that?s for them and the Iraqis decide. But we don?t think the federal government of the United States needs to get involved.?

How many lies can be crammed into a single statement? Iraq is an occupied, not a sovereign, country. The decisions undertaken by its government are sharply constrained by the presence of over 140,000 US troops, upon whom its survival depends. As for the US companies, they did not ?compete and win business,? but rather reached no-bid deals, prepared by US government advisers working out of the Iraqi oil ministry.

A more honest assessment was provided to the Times by Frederick Barton, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, an establishment think tank whose board of trustees includes figures such as Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski. ?We pretend it [oil] is not a centerpiece of our motivation, yet we keep confirming that it is.? Barton told the paper. ?And we undermine our own veracity by citing issues like sovereignty, when we have our hands right in the middle of it.?

The Iraqi regime announced Monday that negotiations on the no-bid contracts with the big Western oil companies were continuing. Last week oil ministry officials had said that the deals were already concluded and would be signed Monday, yet no signing took place.

The agreements had carved up Iraq?s oil fields between the major companies, with Shell gaining access to the northern Kirkuk oilfield, BP set to operate in the southern Rumaila field and Exxon seeking access to the Zubair oil field in the southern province of Basra.

?We did not finalize any agreement with them because they refused to offer consultancy based on fees, as they wanted a share of the oil,? Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani told a press briefing in Baghdad Monday. ?It?s a service contract and not a production-sharing contract,? he added. ?We think there is no need to share Iraq?s oil with anybody.?

Last week it was widely reported that the Iraqi government had agreed to no-bid deals that would indeed provide the major Western companies with a share of the oil produced in the fields where they would be ?consulting,? offering a hugely lucrative return under the present conditions of soaring energy prices.

This shift in the line from Baghdad is likely driven by the immense popular opposition to turning over the country?s oil wealth to the foreign companies and fear within Maliki?s puppet regime that the deals could provoke its downfall.

While claiming that negotiations on the no-bid deals was continuing, Shahristani also announced that Iraq is opening up six giant oil fields and two gas fields to foreign companies, 41 of which have been invited to bid for contracts. The minister described the six fields being thrown open to foreign exploitation for the first time in nearly four decades as ?the backbone of Iraq?s oil production.?

The bids are to be prepared over the next two weeks, with the Oil Ministry saying that deals will be signed by June 2009. The deals are supposed to include Iraqi ?partners? with a minimum of 25 percent interest.

While the motives behind the US war of aggression have now been laid bare, their accomplishment remains anything but certain. Thus far, the major US oil firms have shown no intention to launch any immediate resumption of their long suspended operations in Iraq. The continuing resistance of the Iraqi people to the US occupation makes any such venture hazardous in the extreme.

Moreover, the revelations of the profit interests for which the ongoing war in Iraq is being fought are certain to provoke increased anger and militancy among the Iraqi people and, despite the bipartisan support for this war in Washington, revulsion and opposition among masses of American working people as well.

Have Your Say: US advisers steered Iraqi oil contracts to Western firms
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report here.

RSS TrackBack URL

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Related News

• U.S. Advised Iraqi Ministry on Oil Deals
• Firms await verdict on ?2 billion ID cards project
• Kucinich: We went to Iraq for oil
• Auditors Question Blackwater Contracts: But Is It Really $107 Million?
• Did McCain’s foreign-policy advisor profit from the Iraq war?

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008 at 6:11 am and is filed under Contributions & Guests . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Loading ...

ADVERTISEMENTS

SITE MAPS

7/7 Activism News Afghanistan Alternative-Energy Art Barack Obama BBC Big-Brother Bilderberg Biometrics Bush CCTV Censorship CIA Climate-Change Cover-Up Cults Culture Database-State David-Hicks David-Ray-Griffin Debt Democrats Demos Drugs Education Entertainment Environmental News EU False-Flag FBI Fraud Free-Speech Freemasons G8 Global-News Global-News Globalization Guantanamo Health-News History ID-Cards Internet Iran Iraq Israel John McCain Law Marches Media News MI5 MI6 Microsoft Military MoD Money Music NASA Neocons New World Order NSA Oil Pakistan Podcast Police-State Political News Propaganda Reviews RFID RINF Rumsfeld Science Science & Technology News Secrecy Security Slavery Space Sports Spy Spying Stephen-Lendman Technology Terrorism Tony-Blair Torture TV UK-News UN USA- USA-News Video Voting war War & Terrorism News Warfare Web Development News White-House Wolfowitz World_News Yahoo
2003 - 2005 Archives | 2005 - 2007 Archives | 2007 - 2008 Archives | Current Archives | Past Version