Targeting militias

[Plane]

Who says they're not protected?  Has somebody been stealing the stuff and sneaking it out of the country?

One of the current criticisms of the oil directorate in Iraq is inadequate controls over the product. It's not known if everything that's being pumped is being properly accounted for.

Money and oil are war materiel and rebuilding materiel , there is a crying need to protect these resorces no matter who is harvesting them.

[Michael Tee]

<<One of the current criticisms of the oil directorate in Iraq is inadequate controls over the product. It's not known if everything that's being pumped is being properly accounted for.>>

One of the current criticisms of George W. Bush is that he lied his country into a war.

Are you trying to tell me that current criticism has been suddenly elevated to the basis of proven fact?

[Amianthus]

One of the current criticisms of George W. Bush is that he lied his country into a war.

Are you trying to tell me that current criticism has been suddenly elevated to the basis of proven fact?

No, I'm talking about criticisms raised by authorities and backed by audits, not wild-eyed ravings by anti-Americans.

"The International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB) has been in operation since May 2003 to oversee the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI). The IAMB released its first summary report in December 2004 covering its operations for the period from the establishment of the DFI on May 22, 2003 until the dissolution of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) on June 28, 2004. We now present our second interim report with the IAMB’s comments and conclusions on our work until December 2006.

"The primary responsibility of the IAMB is to promote the objectives set forth in UNSCR 1483 of ensuring that the DFI is used in a transparent manner for the benefit of the Iraqi people and that export sales of petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas are made consistent with prevailing international best practices. In the period from inception in 2003 to end-June 2006 the DFI received $68.8 billion from the proceeds of Iraqi oil export sales, balances from the UN oil-for-food program and frozen Iraqi funds, and disbursed $59.6 billion for the Ministry of Finance, letters of credit for Iraqi ministries, and contracts administered by US Agencies.

"The Board has consistently raised concerns about inadequate controls over Iraqi oil and other aspects of the DFI’s operations, originally with the US Government and more recently with the Government of Iraq. The IAMB was one of the first to raise these issues and alert others about these practices:

• The absence of oil metering. The IAMB recommended in March 2004 the expeditious installation of a comprehensive oil metering system in Iraq in accordance with standard oil industry practices. Oil metering is a key factor to achieve financial transparency and accountability over oil resources in Iraq. Oil production and the related oil export sales have dropped since early 2003, but are gradually rising again in 2006. As an interim step, the IAMB welcomed steps taken by the CPA to curtail smuggling. Some metering has since been installed at oil terminals, but there continues to be no metering in the oil fields. While the Iraqi Government supports oil metering, progress has been slow.
  
• The use of barter transactions for certain oil sales. The IAMB continues to be concerned that barter transactions are not accounted for in the DFI as required by UNSCR 1483. The State Oil Marketing Organization recorded barter transactions of $689 million between May 2003 and June 2006. Some bartering of oil for electricity with a neighboring country continues. The use of barter transactions makes it difficult to determine whether fair value has been received for Iraq’s oil export revenues.
  
• Persistent weak controls in the spending ministries. Recent audits note that the DFI overall control systems need to be strengthened and continue to be critical of the financial and accounting control systems in place in the spending ministries, the US agencies in respect of outstanding commitments using DFI resources and the Iraqi administration of DFI resources. The overall control system needs to be further improved to be sufficiently effective.
  
• The use of non-competitive bidding procedures by the CPA for some contracts funded from the DFI. The IAMB recommended that competitive bidding procedures be used and welcomed steps taken by the CPA to limit future single-sourced contracts to exceptional circumstances. The IAMB continues to question the reasonableness of some of the costs charged and the adequacy of the administration of contracts. While only relatively small exceptions were noted in the recent follow‑up special audits, including of KBR contracts, the IAMB noted exceptionally high transportation costs charged in providing humanitarian fuel supplies to Iraq, in some cases as much as 86 percent of the total contract costs and resulting in a final cost of nearly $7 per gallon. The IAMB observed that the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) has also noted high levels of overhead costs in other contracts. In view of the findings of the special audits, the IAMB recommended that the Iraqi Government seek resolution with the US Government concerning the use of resources of the DFI which might be in contradiction with UNSCR 1483.
  

http://www.iamb.info/pr/pr121806.htm

More at link.

[Michael Tee]

That's exactly what I mean about a barrage of facts proving nothing.  The war couldn't be about oil because the oil isn't being guarded by the U.S.  Proof?  There's no controls over the oil and it's not all accounted for.  And Ami produces official-sounding audits by impressively named bodies to back this all up.  At the end of the day, what does it all prove?

1.  Some huge American corporations like KBR are probably making a killing overcharging for every service rendered to the production zones.

2.  Somebody is stealing the oil because there aren't any controls or there aren't sufficient controls.  Whooooeee!  Stealing oil.  In the Middle East of all places.   Who woulda thunk?  Who could be stealing the oil?  The puppet government?  Naaaahh, they look like honest folk to me.  Sell out their country to the Americans, sure, but steal their country's oil?  Impossible.  The puppets with the connivance of the Americans?  Hey not a bad idea.  For every dollar the puppets can get their hands on from unmetered oil, that's a dollar in support money that the American government doesn't have to pay them.  If the missing oil is as big a deal as BT and Ami seem to think it is, that's a lot of money that the American taxpayer will never have to pony up for a war that's already cost way, way over budget.  Or maybe it's the occupiers themselves.  Could the American army and American multinationals be sharing in any of this missing oil?  Don't ask me, WTF do I know?

3.  Bottom line, nobody seems to be watching the oil right now.  Somebody's getting it "off the books" and the most powerful force in the country, the U.S. Army, ain't doing nothing about it.  Gee, wonder why?

Ami, you are doing good work.  You don't know what the hell you are doing, but you dig up facts, factoids, etc. that you just aren't able to put into context.   But that's OK, some of us here can figure it all out for you.   You just keep digging, Ami, I like everything you found so far. 

BT, the war's about oil.  It's about securing oil sources for the long haul, for the day when China and India and the rest of the world all need more than all the wells in the world can produce.  That day hasn't come yet.  For the time being, the U.S. Army is on the ground on top of the oil and if it manages to stay there until the oil crunch finally arrives, it will have served its function.  In the meantime, nobody gives a shit what happens to the oil - - officially.  It is going somewhere, that's for sure, and probably somewhere the U.S. government turns a blind eye to.  They have their reasons.  A little scam is going on and a few people, all in the temporary good graces of the Bush administration if not actually members thereof, are getting rich from it, but in no way do those shenanigans in any way invalidate the basic truth: that the war is for oil.

[Amianthus]

And Ami produces official-sounding audits by impressively named bodies to back this all up.  At the end of the day, what does it all prove?

You asked if the oil was being stolen, and I said that it was not known because of inadequate controls. You ridiculed my claim, so I produced the documentation.

It remains: it's not known whether or not Iraqi oil is being stolen.

[BT]

BT, the war's about oil.

Glad that's settled.

[sirs]

That's exactly what I mean about a barrage of facts proving nothing.  The war couldn't be about oil because the oil isn't being guarded by the U.S.  Proof?  There's no controls over the oil and it's not all accounted for.  And Ami produces official-sounding audits by impressively named bodies to back this all up.  At the end of the day, what does it all prove?
1.  Some huge American corporations like KBR are probably .........
2.  Somebody is stealing the oil because there aren't any controls or there aren't sufficient controls.  ....  Could the American army and American multinationals be sharing in any of this missing oil?  Don't ask me, WTF do I know?
3.  Bottom line, nobody seems to be watching the oil right now.  Somebody's getting it "off the books" ....

Tee demands facts.  Tee's provided facts.  Tee doesn't like facts.  Tee goes into vague mode, in some effort to degrade the facts that counter his template.   

Ami, you are doing good work.  You don't know what the hell you are doing, but you dig up facts, factoids, etc. that you just aren't able to put into context.   But that's OK, some of us here can figure it all out for you.    

LOL....based on the above synopsis, that sure won't be Tee   

[Michael Tee]

<<You asked if the oil was being stolen, and I said that it was not known because of inadequate controls. You ridiculed my claim, so I produced the documentation.

<<It remains: it's not known whether or not Iraqi oil is being stolen.>>

Ami, you're ignoring context.  Had there been no war and no invasion, nobody in his right mind would give a shit about whether or not the oil of Iraq is being stolen.  The issue surfaced here through BT's rhetorical question:  if the war's about oil, how come nobody's guarding the oil?

The issue of the stolen Iraqi oil has significance only in the context of the debate over the war's real rationale.  When you pulled up those figures, it was implicitly in support of BT's contention:  "See, the oil IS being stolen, [therefore the war can't be about oil.]"  My post demonstrated the absurdity of that line of reasoning.

My apologies to you ONLY if you were digging up those facts in a neutral kind of way, without in any way meaning to bolster BT's argument.  In that case, thanks for the factual insight, and sorry if I attacked you for a position you weren't defending.

[Michael Tee]

<<Tee demands facts.  Tee's provided facts.  Tee doesn't like facts.  Tee goes into vague mode, in some effort to degrade the facts that counter his template.  >>

That's hilarious.  If you took the trouble to read the article that Ami posted, sirs, you'd see that the vagueness was in the article itself.  Oh, well, reading for comprehension was never one of your strong points, was it?

[sirs]

<<Tee demands facts.  Tee's provided facts.  Tee doesn't like facts.  Tee goes into vague mode, in some effort to degrade the facts that counter his template.  >>

If you took the trouble to read the article that Ami posted, sirs, you'd see that the vagueness was in the article itself.

Which of course is proof positive how it's all about the oil, right?       

[Michael Tee]

<<Which of course is proof positive how it's all about the oil, right?  >>

<sigh>  no, sirs, it's proof positive of a very limited set of facts - - that there aren't a lot of controls in place, that somebody might be stealing some of it.

What it DOESN'T prove is that it's not about the oil.  But I realize that is kind of a complex train of reasoning for you.  Why not just leave it at this:  BT and Ami have NOT proven (with the facts that Ami pulled up) that the war's not all about oil?  Think you can handle that?

[Amianthus]

Why not just leave it at this:  BT and Ami have NOT proven (with the facts that Ami pulled up) that the war's not all about oil?  Think you can handle that?

And the converse is also true: Tee has NOT proven that the war's all about oil.

[sirs]

Why not just leave it at this:  BT and Ami have NOT proven that the war's not all about oil?  Think you can handle that?

The ol double negative.  Think you can handle how you haven't come anywhere near as close to they, to proving it was?  Or are you going to fall back to the tried and true 'lack of facts/evidence is proof of such'?

[BT]

Tee has NOT proven that the war's all about oil.

Sure he has.

He says it is obvious to anyone with an intelligence level higher than a brain dead retard.

Very convincing.

[Michael Tee]

<<And the converse is also true: Tee has NOT proven that the war's all about oil.>>

Actually, I did.  By eliminating the alternatives.  By showing the historical precedents for industrial powers attempting to dominate the region.  By showing the plans previously laid by the "President's" top advisors.  By reference to the draft hydrocarbons law recently presented to the Iraqi legislature.  But I guess your attention was focused elsewhere at the time.