Corner turned in Iraq?

[Harlan Huckleby]

This war was driven by the same thing the first gulf war was driven by. Maniacal radicals getting nuclear technology. We didn't want saddam to have it, and we don't want Ahmedinijad having it. .

Ahmedinijad has very limited powers in Iran. And Iran is likely to get nuclear weapons despite the best efforts the U.S. and international community. We will have to live with it.

Oil has had absolutely nothing to do with this war, it would have been much easier and cheaper to take on the green freaks and produce our own energy

there are not enough right-wing whack jobs to take-on the environmental movement. the mainstream has embraced care of the environment as a priority. Your Bob Barr for President rallies give you a distorted view of where most Americans are regarding green issues.

[HarveyWallbangers]

there are not enough right-wing whack jobs to take-on the environmental movement. the mainstream has embraced care of the environment as a priority. Your Bob Barr for President rallies give you a distorted view of where most Americans are regarding green issues.

I don't think he's talking about the normal person who says "yeah, I'll do what I can within reason to help out."

[texaspackerbacker]

It's as naive to say oil had NOTHING to do with the war in Iraq as to say it had EVERYTHING to do with it.

Sure, the well publicized WMD thing had something to do with it--validly--the prospect of a nuclear armed radical Muslim enemy, or even one with bio/chem means of mass murder. Likewise, the lofty goal of spreading American-style freedom, representative democracy, and free enterprise capitalism by establishing a shining example in the midst of the mostly tyrannical and socialist Muslim world also was a valid part of it. But you just can't ignore good ol' SELF INTEREST--that pro-American aspect that elitist liberals tend to look down on as somehow unsavory. In today's context, OIL is the primary element of that American self interest. And having a fair and level bidding structure where American companies can win contracts is a major part of that.

This would NOT happen without, as the thread title says, the Corner Being Turned in Iraq. It also would NOT happen with an Obama presidency--that would first, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq, and second, subscribe to the anti-American concept that there is something wrong with anything good happening to America and Americans.

[Harlan Huckleby]

there are not enough right-wing whack jobs to take-on the environmental movement. the mainstream has embraced care of the environment as a priority. Your Bob Barr for President rallies give you a distorted view of where most Americans are regarding green issues.

I don't think he's talking about the normal person who says "yeah, I'll do what I can within reason to help out."

He's trying to say that people who oppose drilling in Anwar are whacky. And I matched this stupid generalization with another stupid generalization.

Most of what passes for "debate" is just trying to paint the opposition as a cartoon character.

[mraynrand]

Most of what passes for "debate" is just trying to paint the opposition as a cartoon character.

If so, I want to be the Road Runner. BEEP BEEP!

[texaspackerbacker]

Would you settle for the idea that "opposing drilling in ANWAR is putting environmental issues ahead of the security and economy of this country", Harlan? Notice, I resisted the temptation to say "wacko" environmentalist.

If you accept that concept, how is opposition then NOT "wacky"?

Or is putting the interests of caribou, polar bears, and tundra grass ahead of the lives and quality of life of Americans something you would consider sane and OK?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Would you settle for the idea that "opposing drilling in ANWAR is putting environmental issues ahead of the security and economy of this country", Harlan? Notice, I resisted the temptation to say "wacko" environmentalist.

If you accept that exploiting every opportunity to drill for oil is critical to our national security and economy, then yes, anyone who opposes moving ahead with drilling must be whacky and wrong-headed.

But of course its your premise that is whacky and wrong-headed.

This little war of words started when BobbleHead referred to the "green freaks", and I mocked his resort to a name-calling debate by referring to "right wing wackos."

Harvey moved-in to cover for Bobble by refering to 'the normal person who says "yeah, I'll do what I can within reason to help out.'" I say this "normal", reasonable person perfectly describes an environmentalist. But Harvey is trying to say Bobblehead speaks for a different normal, reasonable person - a Bush voter, no doubt.

This discussion is silly.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Don't read this NY Times editorial, it is a waste of your time:

Iraq Oil Rush

Published: June 22, 2008
So great is the demand for oil today — and so great the concern over rising prices — that it would be tempting to uncritically embrace plans by major Western oil companies to return to Iraq.

Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back (June 19, 2008) Unfortunately, the evolving deals could well rekindle understandable suspicions in the Arab world about oil being America’s real reason for invading Iraq and fan even more distrust and resentment among Iraq’s competing religious and ethnic factions.

As reported by Andrew Kramer in The Times, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — are in the final stages of discussions that will let them formally re-enter Iraq’s oil market, which expelled them 36 years ago. The contracts also include Chevron.

Iraq can certainly use the modern technology and skills these oil giants offer. Although Iraq’s oil reserves are among the world’s largest, years of United Nations sanctions and war have badly eroded the industry. Government officials say they aim to increase production from 2.5 million barrels of oil a day to 3 million barrels. That is a minor increase in global terms, but with oil at $140 a barrel, it is good news for Iraqis, who need the money to rebuild their war-torn country.

We cannot blame Baghdad for wanting to get on with exploiting the country’s lucrative oil deposits, especially when Kurds in northern Iraq are rapidly signing contracts to develop oil fields in their own semiautonomous region. Still, the negotiating process pursued by Baghdad is flawed and troubling.

The contracts are being let without competitive bidding to companies that since the American invasion have been quietly advising Iraq’s oil ministry how to increase production. While the contracts are limited to refurbishing equipment and technical support and last only two years, they would give these companies an inside track on vastly more lucrative long-term deals.

Given that corruption is an acknowledged problem in Iraq’s government, the contracts would have more legitimacy if the bidding were open to all and the process more transparent. Iraqis must apply that standard when they let contracts for long-term oil field development.

Also troubling is that the deals were made even though Iraq’s parliament has failed to adopt oil and revenue sharing laws — critical political benchmarks set by the Bush administration. That is evidence of continued deep divisions in Iraq over whether oil should be controlled by central or regional government, whether international oil companies should be involved in development and how the profits should be distributed.

The United States and the oil companies must encourage Iraqi officials to make the political compromises needed to establish in law the rules for managing Iraq’s abundant natural resources with as much transparency as possible. Otherwise, oil will just become one more centripetal force pulling the country apart.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I just found that editorial so bizarre. They are mad because companies from U.S., Britian and France got the contracts!? The main competitor was Russia. They are mad because the Russians lost out? The Russians supported Saddam Hussein to the bitter end.

The NY Times complain that the Iraqi gov is corrupt, the Americans were given an inside track. Who has a magic wand to fix this?

And what is their other complaint .. oh, ya, Iraq hasn't signed an oil law. Everybody wants them to come to a consensus, especially the Iraqis themselves. So they are not supposed to develop their oil wealth until the politics are finalized?

This is one of the dumbest editorials ever written.

[bobblehead]

just to clarify harlen (cuz I respect you and don't want you to think I was being a dick) I MEANT green freaks...I wasn't name calling, I meant the extreme left wing environmentalists who take it to an extreme. I didn't mean normal reasonable conservationists (which I consider myself one).

I meant it in the way you would say homophobes....those that scream homosexuality is a sin against man and they should be banished.

I consider both of them not really identifiable by party (although THEY would) but pretty much outside of 85% of the population.

[texaspackerbacker]

I just found that editorial so bizarre. They are mad because companies from U.S., Britian and France got the contracts!? The main competitor was Russia. They are mad because the Russians lost out? The Russians supported Saddam Hussein to the bitter end.

The NY Times complain that the Iraqi gov is corrupt, the Americans were given an inside track. Who has a magic wand to fix this?

And what is their other complaint .. oh, ya, Iraq hasn't signed an oil law. Everybody wants them to come to a consensus, especially the Iraqis themselves. So they are not supposed to develop their oil wealth until the politics are finalized?

This is one of the dumbest editorials ever written.

Glad to see you post this. I thought at first you were endorsing the Times editorial. The oil sharing thing is being done in a de facto way in Iraq through there budget. That, like so many other areas, is progressing nicely--and being ignored roundly by our own leftist mainstream media.

Regarding your other post, Harlan, the words "wacko" (preferred spelling according to Webster) and "environmentalist" just kinda go together. The alternative is to conclude that they are NOT wacky, and thus, that they KNOW how pro-socialist and deleterious to America and western capitalism in general--and anti-humanity in general--the crap they spew actually is. Therefore, it's giving them the benefit of the doubt to call them "wacky".

[mraynrand]

The oil sharing thing is being done in a de facto way in Iraq through there budget. That, like so many other areas, is progressing nicely--and being ignored roundly by our own leftist mainstream media.

I'm glad you mentioned this. I was scratching my head thinking "I thought they solved the oil revenue problem." OK, it's not perfect, but they keep getting things done over there, and the it's either ignored or lied about by the so-called MSM. Plus, how often do you see a front page story in any newspaper or on any News program about conspicuous bravery in Iraq? Does any one actually report on the positives, other than Britt Hume, and less often, Jim Leher?

This is where Bush completely dropped the ball. He should have given televised Oval office talks to the American people, with maps showing where the troops had secured stability, etc. He should have introduced servicemen that had made a difference in the various provinces. It would have honored their efforts and it would have forced the rest of us to take notice of what is going on over there, good or bad.

[bobblehead]

The oil sharing thing is being done in a de facto way in Iraq through there budget. That, like so many other areas, is progressing nicely--and being ignored roundly by our own leftist mainstream media.

I'm glad you mentioned this. I was scratching my head thinking "I thought they solved the oil revenue problem." OK, it's not perfect, but they keep getting things done over there, and the it's either ignored or lied about by the so-called MSM. Plus, how often do you see a front page story in any newspaper or on any News program about conspicuous bravery in Iraq? Does any one actually report on the positives, other than Britt Hume, and less often, Jim Leher?

This is where Bush completely dropped the ball. He should have given televised Oval office talks to the American people, with maps showing where the troops had secured stability, etc. He should have introduced servicemen that had made a difference in the various provinces. It would have honored their efforts and it would have forced the rest of us to take notice of what is going on over there, good or bad.

Bush and republicans are "doers", the left and clinton are "promoters". I remember clinton having big news conferences with kids surrounding him as he vetoed or signed bills. Without baggin on the left too much, that kind of thing is all hat and no cattle. I see it all the time with marketing efforts, people are selling the most goddamned stupid shit/services, but the marketing is good and they are successful. Bush will never market a war, he is in the business of getting results, not winning PR wars....its the main reason the democrats have had any success in the TV/information era.

Ever been to the palms in Las Vegas...you know, home of celebrities? There really aren't all that many celebrities there and the place is a virtual dump compared to any casino in its revenue class....but they are wildly successful because they sell an image real well.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I heard a couple interesting factoids in an Iraq discussion. There about 130,00 Sunni's who have joined the "Sons of Iraq" militias organized by the U.S. There are an equal number of Sunnis wanting to join! Apparently it is nice work if you can get it.

The Shitte government, for its part, wants to cut the militia in half. Dumb. Well, I can see why they want to grow the Army rather than militias, but they better find a way to pay-off those weekend warriors and wannabees.

The point is that Iraq is still in a VERY fragile state politically. They really need the U.S. there for several years to serve as an independent referee and meld the parties together.

Obama is the agent of hope, we have to hope he will extend his blessing to Iraq too.

The other interesting tidbit was about the recent negotiations with Iraq over future bases and such. Most of what has been reported is about what the U.S. wants (a lot of control) and Iraq doesn't want to give. The other half is that Iraq wants MORE security guarantees than the U.S. is prepared to give! Iraq wants it written in stone that the U.S. will intervene if a conflict breaks out with Iran or Saudi ARabia. The Iraqis remain leary of IRan, even though they have close relations.

It sounds like the Iraqis want it all their way. How shocking! They want us to do a lot for them in a very subordinate role. Of course our position is to have everything our way, too. Sounds like a marriage.

[texaspackerbacker]

Put a "ditto cam" in the Oval Office.

Wouldn't THAT have been fun during the Clinton years?