IT Employment

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Trading With (And Stealing From) "the Enemy"

0 helpful
17 replies

by oz_media

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

A networking associate of mine work for Vancouver
General Hospital. Today he commented on a walkout by the staff regarding funding and investments into Iraqi oil by Texaco Chevron with whom they have invested themselves with no return.

This got me hunting for info regarding Texaco's expected return of it's investment into the Iraqi war to save a massive resource it has been capitalizing on for years.

I was stunned at how many contrary statements and actions have been coming from the White House and the Bush administration. There are WAY too many pages on the Texaco Chevron funding as well as the UN's own inside interests and relationships regarding Iraq's oil.

Everyone knows that I have never bought Bush's alleged reasons for war and I don't buy into the whole Bush administration. The masses of information I found on the Texaco/Bush/UN involvement was way beyond anything I had believed myself.

The following acrticle is just one example, however not as well supported as other arguments I've found but much more simplistic to offer an overview. I'll let you follow your own interests as to how much more you wish to explore, this is just the tip of the iceberg to say the least.

<>>

Since its creation in 1996, US oil companies have used the UN Oil for Food Program as a means to steal billions of dollars of Iraqi oil and reap significant profits. Through the exploitation of this program (in which Iraq has been forced to sell its oil at below-international market price in exchange for humanitarian aid) US companies such as ChevronTexaco, Exxon-Mobil, BP-Amoco, Valero, Clark and Marathon-Ashland have purchased cheap oil for resale through Russian, European and Chinese traders and intermediaries. These companies have made billions from this scheme for years

http://tinyurl.com/w39w

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

again, the above artivle is simply an opinion by a free lance writer. There are MANY other sources including the APM, Oil.com, US Department of State - International Information Programs, and this link http://tinyurl.com/w3aa to the US Embassy report for congress.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
These are just a few from a simple search. For Texaco and it's Iraqi oil involvement and funding.

Now I don't give full credibility to all of these documents or statements but the similarities of information provided cannot be ignored as personal opinion or misconstrued evidence, there are just too many supporting documents.

I think the main question to be asked now is how GWB will gain the estimated $180 to $230 billion plus, needed to fully restore the full functionality of Iraq's oil.
Taxpayers - doubtfully, corporate investment - Texaco has done that and seen no return yet.

17 replies

by jardinier

It has been obvious from a time well before the start of the invasion (I refuse to dignify it with the title of "war") that large scale economics were the primary basis of this action.

Perhaps you could explain how you (albeit an anti-American and all that) could come up so readily with this awesome information while others, who spend half their waking hours searching the Net for pro Bush propaganda could have overlooked this little item?

by oz_media

This information was pretty much made public at one time but quickly covered over with some new "media friendly" reports.

As I said, it was a chat with a friend in between horse races that lead me to do a little simple search for more info. It didn't take ANY diggin to find immmense amounts of information to back the theory. Texaco+Iraq+Oil+UN

Like I 've always said, 'blindly' following.

OM

by jardinier

Don't be dismayed, Oz, at the TOTAL lack of response to your discussion topic from TR regulars. They only like to hear the good things about the Bush administration. It was very obvious to me that when the debacle in Iraq backfired, all discussions relating to Iraq stopped, and there was a long spate of discussions, albeit interesting in their own right, but it was obviously a case of "let's bury our heads in the sand and hope the bad news goes away."

I once started a discussion on Israel and Palestine. There were only three responses: one from John Wills who is a scholar of Jewish history; one from myself; and the third dismissing John and myself as "racist weirdos."

While I note that these good folk who are so proud of their sovereignty (whatever that means) are currently highly critical of former Democrat presidents, how did they manage the same adulation for these non-Republican Presidents?

In Australia the two presidents of recent decades who commanded most respect and admiration were the womanising JFK and Clinton. Yet at TR all I hear is criticism of the political decisions which these men made.

No doubt at some time in the future the great George W Bush, whose insight was so great as to be incomprehensible to to the average person, will be woven into American folklore as yet another outstanding example of "The great American."

by oldefar

"In Australia the two presidents of recent decades who commanded most respect and admiration were the womanising JFK and Clinton. Yet at TR all I hear is criticism of the political decisions which these men made."

I am curious. If you hold these two presidents with the most respect and admiration (I won't presume to ask you to speak for all Australians anymore than I speak for all Americans) will you be so kind as to state why? I mean this as an honest request, Jules. No slur, no attempt to create an argument. If you prefer you can email me directly and I will not share it without your permission.

by jardinier

as the remarks were made in casual conversation with close acquaintances, and would have involved general agreement, I didn't both to register specific issues. The remarks would have been made in contrast to George W. Bush who is universally regarded in the very politically conservative area where I live as a dishonest, unlikeable man and a genuine threat to world stability.

As for myself, I don't follow international politics closely, and merely recall Clinton as a cheery, likeable man who never did anything that upset my corner of the globe. I admired him also for keeping up his cheery air despite being drenched in the mud that was thrown at him for his pecadillo.

As for JFK, well 40 years is a long time ago, but I recall him as an idealistic reformer. If his assassination was carefully planned, I have always assumed it to be because he tried to implement too many social changes too quickly.

The greatest Australian statesman of my lifetime was (is) Gough Whitlam. As the Labor Party had been in opposition for 23 years, it was not surprising that he endeavoured to introduce too many reforms too quickly.

I have always drawn a parallel between JFK and Whitlam. Both erred in trying to implement too much change too quicly. For his trouble, JFK was physically assassinated. Whitlam on the other hand was merely politically assassinated.

by oz_media

Taking time to really sort through the US Embassy report for congress, shows the exact same 'coverup' (for lack of a better word)BY the USA that was actually being OPPPOSED by the USA.

The document is extremely thorough in pointing out the sanctions being breached by other counties but when it comes to how US corporations are using this 'illegal' exporting to thier advantage it is completely sidestepped by saying -

"A press report in March 2001 (Reuters, March 8,2001) listed companies that were purchasing Iraqi oil; many are small companies from countries that seek to do business with Iraq or are sympathetic to easing sanctions on Iraq. U.S. major oil companies are said to buy Iraqi oil shipments from these small traders."

[US major oil companies are SAID to buy Iraq oil shipments from these smale traders] SAID and SMALL minimizing the impact of the statement, as if it's possible they could get a few barrels here and there bt nothing significant, which would be OK. It also basically ignores tha fact that sanctions are being broken for oil exports and USA gains by stating,
- "The primary concern of U.S. officials was that Iraq was reportedly using these revenues to buy prohibited military and WMD technology."

Not that the sanctions were being IGNORED (by the USA) but what Iraq was doing with the money from this illicit exporting to OTHER smaller companies. These smaller companies were in turn responding to a demand from US oil companies who were funding the illicit trading that breached the US sanctions?!?!?

There are several pages regarding Pre-War Illicit trade that put the blame for this trade on such countries as Jordan, Iran/Persian Gulf, Syria, Russia and Turkey.

"U.S. major oil companies are said to buy Iraqi oil shipments from these small traders.
The list included Italtech (Italy); Mastek, and Quantum Holdings (Malaysia);
Zarubezhneftegas, Mashinoimport, Slavneft, Sidanco, and Rosneftimpex (Russia);
Fenar (Lichtenstein); Emir Oil, Coastal Oil Derivatives, and Benzol (United Arab
Emirates); Nafta Petroleum, and KTG Kentford Globe (Cyprus); Glencore, and Lakia
Sari (Switzerland); Al Hoda (Jordan); Belmetalenergo (Belarus); Samasu (Sudan);
Erdem (Turkey); African Petroleum (Namibia); Shaher Trading (Yemen); Aredio
(France); Commercial Home (Ukraine); Awad Ammora (Syria); Montega (South
Africa); Afro Eastern (Ireland); and Bulf Drilling (Romania).

Again, even though they mention that US major oil companies are buying oil from these small tarders, the amount of money and the US companies aren't mentioned, yet there is much focus on WHO they are buying it from not who is demanding and purchasing the supply.

Now for a bit of a segue, many Pro-gun supporters in the USA claim that it is not the person SELLING the guns but the ones BUYING the guns and using them to kill that should be prosecuted.

Catch 22? Best of both worlds?

Just think, I didn't feel Bush's intentions were above board before, I didn't buy his body language, his strayed upper left looks during questioning have been improved by his press associates over time but I still didn't buy him as genuine.

This was being almost completely oblivious to the depth of how these sanctions and give complete US CONTROL of Iraq's every move by themselves and every other country on the globe, excludingt the USA of course. The global police theory.

The other reports show the amount of money gained by the US corporations that fueled these breaches to the US imposed sanctions. When others started to benefit also, the war was on.

Talk about an underhanded idea (Oil-for Food)backfiring and kicking you in the ass!

Whether anyone else feels this is irrlevant is completely up to them. I for one feel more aware of the true reasons behind this unreasonable invasion.

Thanks Jules

by oz_media

I like the new HTML tags, I wonder if I can download the plugin for Dreamweaver. :-P

I'll have a quick browse but the site name itself is telling me the information is instantly biased.
Democratic Underground.

Now we're talking about accepting a specific political view which I tend to dislike when it comes to another countries politics.

I prefer to judge for myself based on actions and credible reports, but I'll have a browse.

by lesdabney67

That site is heavily biased BUT it is also a collection of some of the best lefty activists on the planet. There is a lot to be learned there.

Almost every source of information has a bias. As you noted, DU makes no bones about their bias. Other organizations don't come right out and say, "we are a front organization to pimp for the left or right". But they all do in some way or another.

by oz_media

I took a quick look at a couple of articles and the sources were basically freelance reporting.
The hoards of negative Republican comments show an air of political bias I'm not interested in.

I won't jump on some one else's political bandwagon even though I don't agree with the Republican actions at this time.

I'm not American an therefore will not be voting for a party. I'm not taking sides so I refuse to read Pro-Democratic propaganda OR Pro-Republican propaganda.

You'll just have to work harder at getting more votes come election time, sorry.

OM

by oldefar

I spent several hours looking at the initial link and then searching for the company information regarding the OnLine Journal. I finally went to whois to get a name, and then chased a circular path trying to find more about Bev Conover and Linda Starr. What I found makes whatever they post suspect in my mind, so I chased some of the other links.

The State Department document states essentially what you state, implies little of what you imply. Again, I searched for some other resources.

What I end up with is the following. A number of firms, US as well as many other countries, are on the face of it guilty of putting profits ahead of principal in their dealings with Iraq during the 1990's. Based on pure dollars, Australia, the US, and France are home to the worst offenders.

Trying to trace back all the various ownership issues, time frames, and linkage to individuals proved well beyond my resources. Such effort is more within the capability of investigative reporting teams and political parties with an opportunity to discredit their opposition. History shows that such efforts go on until either overwhelming evidence is obtained or the trail leads in an unwelcome or unuseful direction.

Sometimes when someone smells like crap, its self inflicted, and sometimes it is only what they stepped in. I will concede you the stench, the source is yet unknown.

by oz_media

I agree the source of the main rant is quite sketchy, others had more cedibility.

I did find a website for APM which offered more credible sources and figures, but I lost the page even though I have found the home page.

Also there is the official website for the Food-for-oil oregram and it also offers detail as to the UN's positions as well as Texaco/Chevron and AMOCO.

Like I've said, I don't like Bush becasue I'm an excellent judge of a persons character by studying body language, voice inflections etc. GWB (the first few appearances on National TV) showed obvious signs of fabrication and disbelief in his address by his eye motions. I was skeptical of his message then his body language then continued reports to the contrary. Almost every rebuttal or defensive action he has made when questioned about his true motives had also been very evasive if not inv=credible. He just don't hold water in my mind. Never has, never will. One day all will surface, I would say it gives his opposition good fodder for thier campaigns if nothing else, which is to his disadvantage if some real dirt is aired.

I would think there are a lot of American citizens who are completely relying on the accuracy of the news as many people still place faith in media reports. Unfortunately these topics would have to be very carefully aired to avoid such brush off comments as "Anti-bush campaigning" and being tagged as biased or Democratic BS (in which case all the Republicans will quickly dismiss the comments without further investigation).

The question is, how do you air something like this to a biased audience, that refuses to see wrongs in thier political choices?

For some reason, this seems to be very important, if you've voted you must have made the right choice and to say otherwise later during the term would be admitting to a fault in your ability to evaluate a candidate. With the importance of politics in the U.S.A., I can see this as a very negative tag to hold and why many would refuse to admit fault or that the information is accurate.

NOTE: I didn't get this idea from the internet, it has fuelled demonstrations in Vancouver as well as other cities. I found these sources quickly while investigating the allegations.

by oldefar

I think with your post I understand your position and can accept it as perfectly reasonable.

"Like I've said, I don't like Bush becasue I'm an excellent judge of a persons character by studying body language, voice inflections etc."

"GWB ... showed obvious signs of fabrication and disbelief in his address by his eye motions. I was skeptical of his message then his body language then continued reports to the contrary."

"He just don't hold water in my mind. Never has, never will."

This is a fundamental trait in most people. Once such a perspective is established, pro or con, it is almost impossible to change. Lawyers recognize this and will put defendants on the stand or keep them off the stand based on whether their client will gain or lose the hearts of the jurors by their appearance. Facts alone are rarely sufficient to overcome perception.

Thanks for sharing.

by oz_media

Here ar esome more sources, the firt openly claoming an unbiased, educational form of report (yet I question the sources of some statements):

http://www.plim.org/IraqOil.html

http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2002/11/26/
This link to Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government must hold some credibility if not, I don't think anything will.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraqfull.html

Stating:
"Major purchasers included BP, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Marathon Oil, Mitsubishi, Brazil's Petrobras, Repsol, Shell, Chinese trader Sinochem, and Vitol. However, with difficulties at the southern port of Mina al-Bakr (see below), Iraq has only been averaging exports of 545,000 bbl/d or less since the restart of term contracts"

Just some fodder for Sunday night reading

by oz_media

From a child to an adult, a left handed person loks in one direction when te truth is being a told, the other for a lie. Reversed for a right handed person. Without my textx at hand, they're still in my New West office, I elieve it is upper right for right handed people and lower left for left handed people.

This is also a way that phorensic study determines a left or right handed suspect from a security video capture.

by oz_media

Perhaps a little too cool.

I dunno, but a guy who USED to smoke weed ONCE or TWICE (even if daily, it's USED to)so what? Maybe he's a little more laid back and prone to take things in stride and not act out of reflex.

The guy got a hummer in the White House, wouldn't you? How cool would that be while sitting in the oval office ? Damn, I'd be starting WITEHOWZE.COM in no time, a little shoe cam action.

He was genuine. He MAY have denied his actions at first, but nobody was hurt except him and his family, who have incidentally let it slide I guess (maybe they voted for him and feel responsible to stand by him no matter what).

He smiled a lot, he wasn't shifty, just a corn fed American with big hopes and dreams for the peolpe. I rarely saw Cinton as someone who was trying to manipulate the people of america, he wasn't shifty, he was sincere in his speeches, actions toward his public and his offerings.

I actually think Clinton was pretty cool overall, a genuine HUMAN capable of human mistakes and human compassion. I didn't know what party he represented nor did I care, he was just a cool dude who deserved to stay there. Now look who you've got! A Will Ferrel look alike with a bone to pick with anyone who wants some oil. take anything, just don't endanger HIS oil that he plans to control in Iraq. He is deceptive, VERY shifty looking, has bad mannerisms, faces his pubic without compassion and just stands like a starched politician at his dido as he attempts to seem sincere about whatever BS he is shyly putting forward.

Well, it was America's choice, they got rid of the real human for aRepubilcan robot that is focused on one thing only, WALL STREET and OIL.

Oh well, he isn't Canada's PM.

This discussion is closed to new replies.