IRAN CANCELS OIL CONTRACTS 1981: why Bush will NEVER pull out of Iraq

Without the presence of American troops or a compliant puppet government, even the ayatollahs could see they were being screwed by oil companies.

While the current Iraqi government may wish to please Bush, given the rate of the troops we are "training" immediately crossing over to the insurgents, it's likely that government will collapse as soon as the majority of our troops are gone--or they will start to represent the Iraqi people to save their necks. In either case, the oil companies could end up with nothing, which would be a fitting outcome if it weren't for the bill in hatred, taxes, and death they have stuck us with.

This might be why the recent war funding bill included not only a requirement for Iraqis to pass the Hydrocarbon Law, but a pretty big loophole that allows troops to remain for "training" and chasing al Qaeda AFTER the pullout date. According to the Bush administration, that is all we are doing there right now.

Until the Democrats deal openly and honestly with this oil issue, they are unlikely to end this war and even more unlikely to prevent the next one.

FULL TEXT:

Iran Cancels 1954 Oil Pacts
AP. New York Times. Sep 9, 1981.

Iran has canceled all contracts signed with multinational oil companies before the 1979 Islamic revolution, the Iranian Oil Ministry announced today.

The announcement, carried by the official Iranian press agency, said the contracts had been signed with American, British, Dutch and French companies in 1954.

The statement said the companies had ''plundered the oil resources of Iran from 1954 to 1979, while Iran, which is in fact the justified owner of these resources, had only little to gain from the contracts.''

Industry analysts said they believed Iran's announcement was unlikely to have any practical effect on American oil companies that had operated in Iran because no Iranian oil is currently being bought.

Iran's current crude oil production is estimated at 900,000 barrels a day, down from an average of six million daily before the 1979 revolution.

The contracts signed in 1954 were to have lasted 25 years, with three five-year renewal periods. The ministry has formed a board to investigate any claims resulting from the measure and ''follow up the matter, possibly through international circles, until their final settlement and recovery of the legitimate rights of the Iranian people,'' the announcement said.

OIL MOTIVE for Iraq War resources
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/09/iraq-oil-war-resources.html




iran oil contracts oil concessions iranian revolution islamofascism iraq war privatization jim mcdermott oil psa production sharing agreement president george w bush oil companies shell bpExxonMobil ChevronTexaco ConocoPhillips republican antonia juhasz greg palast GOP conservative corruption occupation colonialism hydrocarbon law grover norquist jay garner professor smartass iraq peak oil propaganda corporation democracy war on terror public relations worst president ever failure war criminal smartass comments resistance censored news

Senators go to Iraq to press passage of OIL THEFT law

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska (a state with lot of oil money sloshing around) went to Iraq to say a timetable for pulling out is a bad idea, the surge will work, and to remind the Iraqis of their duty to pass the Bush administration coerced and oil company written hydrocarbon law:

Murkowski said the senators specifically asked Iraqi lawmakers about the draft hydrocarbon law approved in early March and yet to be passed by the Iraqi Council of Representatives. The law would draft a strategy for developing and managing the oil wealth of the country. The senator said she was confident Iraqi lawmakers were making the legislation a priority.

http://newsminer.com/2007/03/18/5991

If this law were in the interests of the Iraqis, why would Bush and Republican senators have to remind the Iraqis to do this? Do people have to remind you to eat or sleep? Usually, when a salesman is putting on the pressure, it's because they are afraid you'll slow down, look at the fine print, and realize you are being screwed.

In this case, the Bushies are probably worried that once the troops are gone the Iraqis will do the right thing and use the hydrocarbon law to wipe their asses.

Antonia Juhasz, Greg Palast, Greg Muttitt, and Joshua Holland have all provided ample evidence of why the Iraqis should be wary.

The Sopranos provides the simplest explanation of how the deal the Bushies are forcing on the Iraqis works. In most oil rich countries like Saudi, Iran, or Kuwait, the oil companies are like the garbage companies in the Sopranos. Tony may run it and make a tidy profit, but it has no real effect on your home or business who hauls away your garbage. What the Bushies want is to treat Iraq the way Tony treated a gambling addict who got in over his head. He paid for his debts by giving Tony a share of his business. By the time it was all over, Tony had the business and the gambler had nothing.

A real world example might be the Bush administration's other favorite bad guy, Hugo Chavez. They hate him because he only wanted the oil companies to get 70% of Venezuelas oil income instead of 84%.

Ironically, AMERICA gives 84% to oil companies, but we have far more important things to vote about like prayer in school or whether yard gnomes are idols to false gods.

OIL MOTIVE for Iraq War resources
http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2006/09/iraq-oil-war-resources.html




iraq war privatization jim mcdermott oil psa production sharing agreement president george w bush oil companies shell bpExxonMobil ChevronTexaco ConocoPhillips republican antonia juhasz greg palast GOP conservative corruption occupation colonialism hydrocarbon law grover norquist jay garner professor smartass iraq peak oil propaganda corporation democracy war on terror public relations worst president ever failure war criminal smartass comments resistance censored news hugo chavez venezuela

PAT BUCHANAN nuclear math: 10,000 US + 200 Israeli nukes= no Iran threat

In 1992, I listened to Pat Buchanan's speech to the GOP convention as I drove from LA to Portland, and he scared the shit out of me. He came close to calling for an open civil war between conservatives and the rest of us. Fortunately, Papa Bush was embarassed by the excess and lost anyway.

Buchanan has not changed, but the Republicans have moved so far right that he has more in common with the left, largely because he refuses to ignore what he knows about history and math for the sake of agreeing the party.

The basic math on Iran is roughly the same as it was on Iraq:

• We have 10,000 nuclear warheads


• Israel has 200


• Iran has none (maybe a handful in a few years to a decade)


• If Iran uses one on us or Israel, either of us could nuke Iran out of existence and still have plenty to spare.

Back in the Cold War, neither we nor the Soviets launched our nukes because of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). It seems hard to believe a smaller country would commit suicide, knowing that at best they injured us, but couldn't take us with them. This should be called a corollary of MAD: OSH-OSAD (One Side Hurt-One Side Assured Destruction).

We have the most powerful military on earth, but are continually being persuaded that some flea on our ass is going to eat us alive. imagine you had a neighbor who collected machine guns and occasionally shot the other neighbors dogs. Would you ever steal his newspaper off the driveway? Or sleep with his wife? Or pick a fight with him?

If you prefer we skip this war, sign this petition that Howard Zinn, Harold Pinter, and George Galloway have already put their names on:

http://stopwaroniran.org/statement.shtml

KEY EXCERPTS:

Churchill, Hitler, and Newt

By Patrick J. Buchanan

02/20/06 "WND"

But are the comparisons of Ahmadinejad with Hitler and Iran with the Third Reich, let alone Newt with Churchill, instructive? Or are they ludicrous? Again, a few facts.

In 1942, Hitler's armies dominated Europe from the Pyrenees to the Urals. Ahmadinejad is the president of a nation whose air and naval forces would be toasted in hours by the United States. Iran has missiles that can hit Israel, but no nuclear warheads. Israel could put scores of atom bombs on Iran. The United States, without losing a plane, could make the country uninhabitable with one B-2 flyover and a few MX and Trident missiles.

Why would Ayatollah Khameinei, who has far more power than Ahmadinejad, permit him to ignite a war that could mean the end of their revolution and country? And if we were not intimidated by a USSR with thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on us, why should Ahmadinejad cause Newt to break out in cold sweats at night?

Currently, the "nuclear program" of Iran consists of trying to run uranium hexafluoride gas through a few centrifuges. There is no hard evidence Iran is within three years of producing enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb.

FULL TEXT:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11991.htm


pat buchanan iran nuclear program cold war warhead mutually assured destruction newt gingrich political opinion colonialism white mans burden professor smartass iraq peak oil bourse smartass answers president george w bush false flag northwoods propaganda