If American firms take over the running of those oil fields on exclusive contracts which seems to be the current pattern, then that's a form of stealing.
No it isn't. If the American companies get the contract after actual open bidding there is nothing wrong with it.
To date, the bidding has not been open.
If American companies get special preferences that make it more likely for them to win then it might be seen as unfair but it would be hurting (if anyone) European companies who don't get a shot rather then Iraq.
To date, American firms have had preference.
If American companies get some super favorable contract that allows them to take most of the profit from Iraqi oil for themselves then it might legitimately be considered "a form of stealing", but that hasn't happened and there is no evidence to suggest that it will.
Its pretty early but so far that's the way it looks. Why is the administration so resistant to have other countries participate in the securing of Iraq?
Besides, what was Cheney doing reviewing Iraq's oil assets well before 9/11?
Cheney reviews all sorts of things, plus he has long been interested in oil and energy.
Good answer........you should work for Cheney. Cheney is the VP of the US, not Iraq.
If you don't start with the assumption that there is something sinister about Cheney's activities or that everything Cheney does is part of some machiavellian scheme there is no reason to think there is anything wrong with Cheney's activities in this area.
Unfortunately, I have to think there might be something sinister because of the bad rep the oil industry has in general........let's not forget Enron. Plus, there is the sale of products to Iraq when Cheney was CEO of Halliburton while he was in support of the neocon move to attack Iraq in the late '90s. And then there was something under Nixon that was a bit dubious.....Iran Costra Costa or was that under Reagan or Ford?
but one thing is clear, the American public is usually the last to find out.
Perhaps but the general fact that things can be and have been kept secret is not evidence of anything sinister about Cheney's looking in to Iraq. The evidence put forth for the idea that Cheney was doing something sinister has pretty much been vapor so far. Its similar to, probably less then, the evidence put forward by those who think Clinton had Vince Foster murdered. If you start with the assumption that someone is guilty, all sorts of evidence will fit together to support your claim but if you don't start with that assumption all the theories of plots, conspiracies and secretive wrongdoing usually amount to smoke and mirrors, there is nothing substantial behind them.
If its not sinister or Machiavellian, why the secrets?
Why do you ignore Cheney's past actions when it comes to oil?
Because there has been 0 substantial evidence that he did anything seriously wrong.
You don't think granting Halliburton, his former company, an exclusive, non open bidded contract with an upside limit of $7 billion isn't a bit suspicious?
BTW what else does Cheney do with his time?
Something that is unambiguously wrong, probably illegal, and clearly without reasonable doubt linked solidly to him. So far there has been none of that.
Just what I thought. I really like the transparency in this administration. It helps me sleep at night.
ted |
