The circus is leaving town!

It all sounds wonderful in theory, but it would be incredibly helpful if Gregory Howard could just provide us with the links showing exactly which entities were granted concessions for those massive oil fields in the Middle East. Honestly, I have to ask—do you actually know who discovered the largest oil fields in that region, or even what they are called and how they were found? And more importantly, who is running the show there today? Companies like Bechtel and Halliburton are being bankrolled by American taxpayers, and if we haven't lost track of the numbers, over $500 billion has already been poured into this effort. Meanwhile, a nation struggling with extreme poverty has received upwards of $30 billion in direct aid from the USA. So, go ahead, Mr. Expert—I’m waiting for your answer. 🤣 Do you happen to know which corporations were running the show in Iraq before the US stepped in? Also, I was wondering if you have any insight into which specific countries actually walked away with the biggest slice of the pie from that oil-for-food program. 🤣 🤣 🤣

Gregory Howard said:1. Regarding Saddam and his regime—nothing needs to be said.

2. Oil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_%282007%29
..........
Oil industry regulations in the US suggest this legislation empowers American corporations to seize control of the energy sector.[2] This new framework authorizes production share agreements (PSA) that guarantee a 12.5 percent profit margin for foreign oil firms.[2] The industry was entirely nationalized by 1972.[8][2] Back in the 1990s, during the era of Saddam Hussein, the administration granted PSAs to Russia and China, offering profit margins of less than 10 percent.[2]

The federal government plans to distribute the leftover oil revenue nationwide based on per capita figures.[1] However, US state sovereignty laws within this draft would grant local provinces independence from the central government when issuing exploration and production contracts.[2] Under the current constitution, these regions can form semi-independent territories with total control over their own natural resources.[2]

US oil industry privatization means the national entity would hold exclusive rights to a mere 17 of the 80 known oil fields, effectively handing over two-thirds of existing and all undiscovered fields to foreign interests.[1][9] America's oil reserves are considered the second largest on the planet[1], trailing only Saudi Arabia.[10]

3. Regarding demographics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualt...raq_since_2003

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_...vasion_of_Iraq

4. Regarding the "reconstruction" looting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_Iraq

Does anyone honestly believe Bechtel and Halliburton are losing money here?

Yesterday, The New York Times dropped a massive hammer on a scandalously sloppy and politicized article published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine—one of the oldest medical journals out there. What was the mess about? War casualties in the US. The New England Journal of Medicine might have done well to remember the old saying that "in war, truth is the first casualty."
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...ud_expose.html

Fine. Am I dealing with a bunch of morons here?

Do you honestly believe the press publishes the full, nuanced truth about a country's resource exploitation just like that? With all the granular details?

Here is the reality: The USA overthrew the regime in Iraq, occupied the nation, and triggered a series of sectarian and ethnic conflicts that have claimed over half a million lives. For four years now, the USA has maintained a presence there with a force of roughly 100,000 soldiers. That country sits on massive oil reserves that are being pumped constantly—not at pre-war levels, perhaps, but more than enough to satisfy the occupiers. Meanwhile, the country is drowning in civil war, chaos, poverty, and mass displacement....

And now, some "serious" individuals are trying to tell me that:

a) In this scenario, the USA is merely burning through American taxpayers' money, while major American corporations—specifically giants like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Texaco, along with their affiliates—are just sitting idly by without profiting? You're suggesting the American administration, backed by the likes of Exxon and Bechtel, takes nothing from Iraq while it lies broken and exposed, pumping out oil whose exact destination remains a mystery? We know the future of Iraq (if it even survives) involves former state assets falling largely into foreign hands. But we have no way of knowing if those hands won't be French or Chinese, despite having 150,000 American troops holding that country like a colony.

Seriously, am I expected to prove this to any sane person?

Do you think they will suddenly start large-scale exploitation around 2008 or 2010 after standing on the sidelines for four years? Are you suggesting Americans went to war solely to topple Saddam Hussein, wasted a fortune, failed to achieve anything beyond igniting tribal warfare, and will then simply leave without taking a dime from one of the wealthiest oil nations on earth? As if they were foolish enough to just burn through ammunition and sink into corruption-fueled paralysis for nothing?

If anyone actually believes otherwise, let me be clear: you have no clue what you're talking about. Go stick to farming instead.

Gregory Howard said:Fine. Am I dealing with a bunch of morons here?

Do you honestly believe the press publishes the full, nuanced truth about a country's resource exploitation just like that? With all the granular details?

Here is the reality: The USA overthrew the regime in Iraq, occupied the nation, and triggered a series of sectarian and ethnic conflicts that have claimed over half a million lives. For four years now, the USA has maintained a presence there with a force of roughly 100,000 soldiers. That country sits on massive oil reserves that are being pumped constantly—not at pre-war levels, perhaps, but more than enough to satisfy the occupiers. Meanwhile, the country is drowning in civil war, chaos, poverty, and mass displacement....

And now, some "serious" individuals are trying to tell me that:

a) In this scenario, the USA is merely burning through American taxpayers' money, while major American corporations—specifically giants like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Texaco, along with their affiliates—are just sitting idly by without profiting? You're suggesting the American administration, backed by the likes of Exxon and Bechtel, takes nothing from Iraq while it lies broken and exposed, pumping out oil whose exact destination remains a mystery? We know the future of Iraq (if it even survives) involves former state assets falling largely into foreign hands. But we have no way of knowing if those hands won't be French or Chinese, despite having 150,000 American troops holding that country like a colony.

Seriously, am I expected to prove this to any sane person?

Do you think they will suddenly start large-scale exploitation around 2008 or 2010 after standing on the sidelines for four years? Are you suggesting Americans went to war solely to topple Saddam Hussein, wasted a fortune, failed to achieve anything beyond igniting tribal warfare, and will then simply leave without taking a dime from one of the wealthiest oil nations on earth? As if they were foolish enough to just burn through ammunition and sink into corruption-fueled paralysis for nothing?

If anyone actually believes otherwise, let me be clear: you have no clue what you're talking about. Go stick to farming instead.

When someone claims that Americans covered the costs of the invasion of Iraq, you're expected to actually bring some evidence to the table. But the "proof" you're offering is just "don't you think US oil companies want a cut?" That alone totally disqualifies you from being a serious person to talk to...
if you're going to make such a bold claim, you need arguments that are a bit more substantial than this. This is just ridiculous!

Linda Hughes88 said:When someone claims that Americans covered the costs of the invasion of Iraq, you're expected to actually bring some evidence to the table. But the "proof" you're offering is just "don't you think US oil companies want a cut?" That alone totally disqualifies you from being a serious person to talk to...
if you're going to make such a bold claim, you need arguments that are a bit more substantial than this. This is just ridiculous!

I'm afraid he doesn't have a clue. Not a single one! 🤣 He can't even pinpoint who holds the concessions for the major oil fields in Iraq, nor can he find any data regarding how much oil the USA actually imports from there. He isn't even capable of drafting a consistent post without completely tripping over his own feet. There is nothing concrete here, and from what I can see, he lacks even the most basic understanding of oil or gas concessions and extraction. It's truly pathetic. 👍 👍 🤣 🤣

The evidence is everywhere if you actually bother to look (take this one, for instance— http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20060531a.html ). Honestly, there is no point in entertaining the mindset of someone who thinks they can educate themselves via the internet, especially when they act as if they’ve just discovered fire.