<<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.