At the Iraq oil auction

[sirs]

    & with a bit of anger when it doesn't, along with overt obtuse criticism aimed at anyone daring to criticize the effort of trying to fit the square peg, into the round hole.  "It fits dammit, can't you see??  That gapping you see....well, that's Bush's fault.  You're simply delusional if you can't see how it all fits"  

[Michael Tee]

<<Ah huh, it [Iraqi oil] was once firmly in the hands of an Iraqi person by the name of Saddam Hussein.>>

Maybe you could then explain to me how, under the rule of that same Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people managed to enjoy government-paid health care, universal free education from pre-school to grad school and paid tuition and expenses for any grad students attending foreign universities?

I guess they and/or their government were all independently wealthy and needed none of the government's oil money, huh? 

Oh, and wanna bet how long they'll continue to enjoy free health care and free education after the abolition of socialism?  Don't make me laugh.  It's every man for himself from now on, and don't count on the government to help 'em out with oil money, because they won't have so much of it any more.

[BT]

Maybe you could then explain to me how, under the rule of that same Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi people managed to enjoy government-paid health care, universal free education from pre-school to grad school and paid tuition and expenses for any grad students attending foreign universities?

Wasn't the beef against sanctions that 500,000 a year were starving to death?

Does free health care feed an empty stomach?

[Michael Tee]

<<Why would you classify Saddam Husseins government as socialist?>>

Because that's  what articles 12 and 13 of the Iraqi constitution said it was.

<<Article 12 [Economy, Arab Unity]
The State assumes the responsibility for planning, directing and steering the national
economy for the purpose of:
(a) Establishing the socialist system on scientific and revolutionary foundations.
(b) Realizing the economic Arab unity.
<<Article 13 [Public Property and Planning]
National resources and basic means of production are owned by the People. They are
directly invested by the Central Authority in the Iraqi Republic, according to exigencies
of the general planning of the national economy.>>

http://confinder.richmond.edu/admin/docs/local_iraq1990.pdf


<<I thought it was marginally monarchist.>>

I'm not sure what you mean by "marginally monarchist," but there is no mention of a monarch in either the Ba'ath or the puppet constitution that the Americans got Professor Noah Feldman to write up for the occupied country after the fall of Saddam's Ba'athist regime.

<<The Iriquis that benefited from Saddam being in charge were the Iriquis of Saddam's tribe , and not all of these.>>

Every Iraqi, including Christians and Jews, got free education from pre-school to the end of grad school, and free medical care.  I am sure that Saddam gave more to his tribe than to others, but the whole country benefited from public ownership of the resources, regardless of which tribe they belonged to.  If you have any sources to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing them.

[Michael Tee]

<<Wasn't the beef against sanctions that 500,000 a year were starving to death?>>

Well, the beef was that large numbers were dying of starvation.  I didn't see the number 500,000 per year, but in principle you are correct, the beef was the number of people dying.

<<Does free health care feed an empty stomach?>>

I dunno.  But on the theory that one stupid question deserves another:  Does "democracy" keep a skyscraper standing when it's hit by a couple of airliners?

[Michael Tee]

<<Do the Chineese have that kind of money?>>

Yeah, actually they do.

<<We do allow a lot of foreighn buy in.>>

No, actually you don't.  You haven't sold ownership of a single American mine or oil well to the Chinese and a few years ago when they wanted to buy into an American oil or mining company the U.S. government went ape-shit and the deal was called off.

[BT]

Does "democracy" keep a skyscraper standing when it's hit by a couple of airliners?

No, but it does provide a means to authorize payback.

[Amianthus]

No, actually you don't.  You haven't sold ownership of a single American mine or oil well to the Chinese and a few years ago when they wanted to buy into an American oil or mining company the U.S. government went ape-shit and the deal was called off.

Shell does a lot of the oil drilling in the US. As do other foreign companies.

[BSB]

Iraq can sell what it wants, buy what it wants, have the healhcare it wants, have the education system it wants, etc., etc. You aren't making a lick of sense here, Snowblower.

[Michael Tee]

<<Iraq can sell what it wants, buy what it wants, have the healhcare it wants, have the education system it wants, etc., etc. You aren't making a lick of sense here, Snowblower.>>

I'm certainly trying.  Iraq had a made-in-Iraq constitution that put the natural resources of the country in the hands of the people of Iraq.  In addition to Articles 12 and 13, which I previously reproduced in this thread, the Ba'athist Constitution also provided in Article 15 that:

<<Article 15 [Public Property]
<<Public ownership and properties of the Public Sector are inviolable. The State and all
People are responsible for safeguarding, securing, and protecting it. Any sabotage to it or
aggression against it, is considered as sabotage and aggression against the entity of the
Society.>>

It was not constitutionally permissible to sell off the national heritage.  Ami has pointed out that Saddam had in fact granted some concessions to foreign or "multi-national" oil companies, but I'm not aware of any such concessions and certainly not aware of the extent to which they were made, i.e., what percentage of the known reserves were affected, what terms the concessions were granted on, how long they were to last, etc.  As far as I know, the Saddam-era concessions are referred to only in Ami's post.

After the invasion, Iraq was saddled with a made-in-America constitution which abolished socialism and state ownership of the national resources, changes which were followed by a new Hydrocarbons Law and then the auctions which this thread is dealing with.  It looks like ALL of the national oil reserves are up for auction to foreign and "multi-national" corporations, and that Lukoil, Petronas, Exxon-Mobil, Royal Dutch-Shell and either Sinopec or CNOC (I forget which) are the winners.  (Although late-breaking news seems to indicate that the Iraqi government is already trying to renegotiate some of the concessions granted.)

If a free Iraq had voted for a new constitution which permitted selling off the rights to exploit the oil wells etc., then your comments that Iraq was free to sell what it wants etc. would have some validity, but in fact this has not happened.  The American invaders forced this constitution on them, joined with collaborators to create a collaborationist government which then enacted a new Hydrocarbons Law, under which these auctions are taking place,

Your comments about education and health care are clearly based on your inability to grasp a point I had made in response to your argument that Saddam and not the Iraqi people were the true owners of the oil.  The people were clearly the owners and benefited from their ownership, as evidenced by the free health care and education they enjoyed.  Had Saddam clearly hogged it all for himself and his cronies, the Iraqi people would never have been able to benefit to the extent that they did from the wealth of the country.  I think you missed my point completely and misconceived the issue to be one of freedom to provide or not provide the benefits I mentioned.

[Michael Tee]

<<Shell does a lot of the oil drilling in the US. As do other foreign companies.>>

That's totally beside the point.  Nobody offered up all of America's mines and oil wells on auction and nobody ever will.  plane had justified the auctioning off of the national wealth on the basis that the Iraqis needed jobs and capital.

[BSB]

You're missing the point MT, it's their business what they do. Not mine or yours. 

[Michael Tee]

Here's a further thought of mine on this subject, which came from some further reading on-line about this.

Suppose that the influences on the Bush government were a little bit broader than I had previously suspected.  Suppose the pressure to invade Iraq didn't come from "American" oil companies but from the "multi-nationals" in general, from Royal Dutch-Shell as much as from Exxon-Mobil, from Lukoil as much as from Chevron.

Oil had to be the reason for the invasion, but oil for whom?  Big oil has its way with all kinds of governments, why not the U.S. government as well?  It would be highly unrealistic to suppose that Big Oil, American or not, would have powerful incentives to offer any government, or that Chevron and Exxon-Mobil aren't members of the same club as Lukoil and Royal Dutch-Shell.  Perhaps all the members of the oil patch were interested in breaking the back of a Socialist government that had monopolized the second-largest proven oil reserves in the world.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS21626.pdf

Maybe the oil-patch's interest in Iraq was limited to just prying those reserves out of the hands of the people of Iraq and into the hands of private oil companies or even non-Iraqi NOCs, figuring that once the big break was accomplished, the market and normal inter-corporate trading would allow ever-increasing distribution to the industry as a whole, benefiting all participants EXCEPT the Iraqi people, who in any event are not members in good standing of the oil industry.

My only mistake to date may in fact have been to assume that Bush was under pressure from and acting in the interests of the American oil industry, when in fact it was Big Oil generally whose interests he was looking after.

[BSB]

Your mistake MT is in thinking the world should turn out the way you want it to.

[Michael Tee]

<<You're missing the point MT, it's their business what they do. Not mine or yours.  >>

Well, that just isn't true, BSB.  It seems also to have become the business of the British and American invaders, who not only provided Iraq  with a new Constitution and a new Hydrocarbons Law, but whose oil companies participated actively in the auctions made possible by that new constitution and by that new Hydrocarbons Law..

The made in Iraq constitution did not permit sale of national resources to foreigners, but the made-in-America one did.  So your country MADE it their business what they (Iraq) did.