English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

instead U.S. must borrow,borrow borrow from germany, France, Japan and China-
the dollar is dropping- China wants it's money back...
uh-oh

2007-04-06 06:30:22 · 20 answers · asked by omnimog 4 in Politics & Government Politics

hey rukiddin - you read into my question deeper and you'll see what I'm getting at-
"Klink" is just to help the Neos feel more comfortable
lol!
have an oily day!

2007-04-06 06:53:54 · update #1

According to the Bush Administration, the notion that the occupation of Iraq invasion was a means to gain control over that country’s vast oil reserves is “nonsense” and “a myth.” However, in February, 2007, the proposed draft of a new law to structure Iraq’s oil industry was leaked, and it is now being considered by the Iraqi parliament. Several key features of the law would:

Allow two-thirds of Iraq’s oil fields to be developed by private oil corporations. In contrast, the oil industry has been nationalized in every other major Middle Eastern producer for over 30 years.
Place governing decisions over oil in a new body known as the Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council, which would include foreign oil companies;
Open the door for foreign oil companies to lock up decades-long deals now, when the Iraqi government is at its weakest.
Overall, the law would secure the agenda of ExxonMobil, Chevon, and the other majors, robbing the Iraqi people of their most basic source of wealth.

2007-04-06 06:58:32 · update #2

iraqoilaw.com

2007-04-06 06:59:04 · update #3

20 answers

wo ai ni

2007-04-06 06:33:47 · answer #1 · answered by Unfrozen Caveman 6 · 1 2

Wasn't this a "War for Oil"? I thought we were just going to take it?

They have time to pay us.

True or False is the current DEBT less than the the annual GDP in the US?

ADD: So access to Iraq's oil will be avaialble to oil companies and not the State like all the other monarchies and dictatorships in the ME. You view this as bad because the Iraqi government is weak and being manipulated. While at the same time you want us to leave Iraq immediately so the Iraqis will "step up".

So to summarize your position all oil should be controlled by the Iraqi governemt but they are to weak to do that?

I guess you want the UN to step in when we leave and resolve this little problem right?

2007-04-06 06:35:01 · answer #2 · answered by jonepemberton 3 · 1 2

Bush is borrowed so much from China and it is a communist country, they are asking him return what he has borrowed , he is leaving that up to the next President. You couldn't pay me enough to be the next President next term, you'll expected to pay all his dues, try to straightened up, Iraq. All these things he has done your suppose walk into that oval office and in a month the people willl expect you to have all this mess straightened out, the people will demand in a month for the budget to be balanced, all this mess he has created completely wiped out, you will be talked about called the sorriest President ever just because what it took all those years to mess it up, in one month you are suppose have a clean slate. There is no way Democrat or Republican can do it in the first 4 years. He has that place in a bigger mess than people ever even thought about. Old Al Capone and his helper Bush have broke America and without money and means to do the things you know need to done, you just can't do it. There just no way not in one term maybe there wil still be somethings left over still, but people will not take a excuse as to why you don't have all this stuff accomplished.

2007-04-06 07:04:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Yes it was and how did Paul "I don't know crap from crayons" Wolfowitz get punished for his wildly off the mark prediction? Oh right he heads the world bank now, must be nice to be a screw up & get another good job, wish real life worked like that for the rest of us huh

And for the no fact knowing poster below me:

Paul Wolfowitz told a congressional panel, "The oil revenue of [Iraq] could bring between $50 billion and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

2007-04-06 06:35:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

There was an official in the Bush Administration, I forget who, that said the war would cost "No more than 50 million dollars." When asked by the interviewer whether he was sure that this was the full and complete total price, he said "Yes. That is the full price."

I actually heard the interview.

This guy was as straight with us as Bush and Dick "Last Throes" Cheney have been.

2007-04-06 06:42:40 · answer #5 · answered by marianddoc 4 · 2 0

No, united statesa. could be identifying to purchase the educatuion of Iraqi babies who have been as quickly as among the main literate and terrific knowledgeable interior the international. in view that united statesa.'s vile conflict you have grew to become their preparation equipment into one which is on a par with third international international locations. you additionally should pay to get their healthcare lower back on objective and additionally you could compensate each and every harmless Iraqi family members who've misplaced a chum due on your international locations administrations evil movements via profession. you moreover mght would desire to compensate the households of the 4000 united statestroops who've died in view which you sent them to conflict in line with lies and greed.

2016-12-20 07:38:31 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

That's what I thought,china wanted to drop massive amounts of U,S dollars,so much it would bring down the dollar and the stock market.and yes Iraq oil must pay for Bush,s war it must Bush said that 2 years agoo,,.cheers

2007-04-06 06:49:54 · answer #7 · answered by decider JR 3 · 2 0

No, we were gonna let the Iraqi's have the oil. But we do have US companies over there doing the work and restoring their refineries etc. American Companies do get the profit, but the plan was never to take the oil from them to pay for it. We'll have to float more bonds. Nancy Pelosi would have no trouble floating bonds for more welfare for pregnant single moms.

2007-04-06 06:39:20 · answer #8 · answered by stick man 6 · 0 2

Now, Klink, in the last question you were against oil having anything to do with Iraq; in this one, you want oil to pay for the war. Which is it? You know the Nazis tried to have it both ways and failed miserably.

2007-04-06 06:35:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Yes, that was the plan given as to how to pay for the War. But apparently no-bid contracts cost more then the $4 billion worth of oil that Iraq has.

2007-04-06 06:34:12 · answer #10 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 2 2

Yes, but they didn't forsee the problem: all those flowers thrown by grateful Iraqis keep clogging up the oil pipelines, you see.

THAT's why oil isn't getting pumped there.

;-)

2007-04-06 08:40:44 · answer #11 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers