I Want Some Trump Gasoline

You should listen to yourself. Security and protecting people are different than rewriting their country's oil policy. I wonder how other countries around the world, would view your comment? How'd all that work out? Not too good.

 

We did not rewrite their oil policy. Their newly formed government wrote their own oil policy. They even included protections in the Constitution dictating how their oil resources could be utilized for the equitable benefit of all the Iraqi people. Our responsibility was merely to make sure their plan moving forward met UN and US Congressional requirements necessary to end our obligation to the Iraqi people. From that point on we no longer had to bleed US taxpayer money to support their government or rebuild their infrastructure. It was and is now all on them. While you may think it nefarious for the US and the UN to mandate the standards the new Iraqi government had to meet, that is just the reality of being an occupying force. We met our obligations to the Iraqi people as an occupying force and Iraq was able to develop a plan for equitable distribution of their own oil proceeds. It was the right thing to do and quite generous. It is without parallel in the history of foreign occupations. We should be proud of our conduct. By the way, it was ratified by the Iraqi people through referendum. So they obviously thought it was a fair and equitable plan moving forward.

 

Going around in circles. I provided the link where we tried to rewrite their oil policy. But you are correct, that we did not rewrite their oil policy, because our attempt to do so failed (and we spent $6 Trillion).

 

We did not try to rewrite their oil policy. They tried to rewrite their own oil policy and we rejected it due to a number of objections by various groups internal to the newly elected Iraqi government. In 2007 after the initial report Congress decided they had not succeeded and we should continue to support their country at least until the following year while the Iraqi's worked out the details internally. Some tribal factions took issue with the plan and did not think it would be equitable and once control was turned over the agreement could be amended and used to establish dictatorial or tyrannical rule over them. The 2007 report and the subsequent response from the US Congress informed the Iraqi government why we weren't yet satisfied and what they needed to do to come into compliance. But that isn't the US trying to write their plan. It is just us letting them know why we felt they needed to continue working on it internally until all groups within Iraq were satisfied. We didn't want a 51% agreement. We wanted overwhelming agreement among the entire populace. So, they worked on it another year, added some Constitutional guarantees, yada, yada, yada. Voted on a referendum to ratify the plan and in 2008 we turned it all over to them. Simple as that.

Whether you agree or disagree with how the Iraqi's decided to handle their resources, you should take that up with them. Point is, we didn't benefit or expend one drop of Iraqi oil. Quite the contrary. The expense to the American taxpayer was significant. Should we have turned it over in 2007? Should we have turned it over in 2008? Or should we still be overseeing the oil fund and still paying our own money to fund Iraq to this day? All in all I think we did an EXCELLENT job as occupying overseers protecting the interests of the Iraqi people. Waiting until the following year 2008 wasn't for our benefit after all. We had EVERY incentive to accept the 2007 plan as it would have saved us quite a lot of money. So no, not a "war for oil". We benefitted only in the hopes we helped give the Iraqi people the prospect of having a stable government acting on their behalf and therefore reducing the chance of further turmoil in the region.

 

A slight correction. We spent $111B per month on BOTH the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts up until 2004. Over 20 years the total was $5.8T. So your 6 $Trillion figure isn't just for Iraq. But again, this just further emphasizes our generosity and willingness to due our duty as an occupying force to protect the people of Iraq. The UN, the UK and a host of other coalition forces were also consulted for their take on how to proceed with turning authority over to the Iraqi government. If you are a US taxpayer you have a right to take issue with such a large obligation. It is your right as a US taxpayer to weigh in on whether we should have been so generous. Did the world or the US benefit sufficiently from providing the Iraqi's the opportunity to change their own history? It is your right as an American taxpayer to criticize our generosity. But you cannot claim it was a "war for oil". That is just completely disingenuous and flies in the face of the facts.

 

That was the only real reason.

 

That is not true.

The primary objective of the Iraq War was to seize Iraq, install a puppet government, and return the lion’s share of the oil revenue that the oil companies had enjoyed before nationalization.

With that in mind, the Houston law firm,Vinson & Elkins began drafting the Iraqi Petroleum Law, for rubber stamping. The law exactly reversed the percentage of oil revenue that went to Iraq, from 72% to 28%. It intended to enable this arrangement through a series of Production Sharing Agreements.

But the law was universally unpopular in Iraq, one of the few things that most Iraqis agreed upon. That and wanting to see the backs of the Americans, and their mercenary accomplices.

So Parliment turned the tables on the “Coalition” adopted the idea of Production Sharing Agreements, and proceed to award 60 of them The US had intended these Agreements to involve only Exxon, SoCal, and later BP. The original pattern in the original Iraqi Petroleum Corporation. But by awarding 60, Iraq diluted the power of big oil.

 

White flag accepted. You may keep your horse, buy not your side-arms.

 

Where do you get this stuff? Do you just make up your own conspiracy theories as you go? Vinson and Elkins is a very large law firm which specializes in the oil and gas industry. Especially pipelines. They were hired by the Iraqi government to handle a dispute between Iraq and Turkey regarding an PSA agreement they had to lease a certain percentage of the throughput of some pipeline that runs between Iraq and Turkey. This agreement wasn't even in place at the time we turned everything over to Iraq. They were hired in 2022 to represent Iraq. The disputed PSA which Iraq claims Turkey violated was made 14 years ago well after we turned it over to them. Do you not research this stuff before you throw it out there hoping something will stick to the wall? At the time we turned over the fund and the control of the Iraq oil resources back to Iraq there WERE NO AGREEMENTS to do anything with the oil. It has been Iraq in charge of setting up any agreements they have with Turkey, France or whoever. We don't even get oil from Iraq. It has nothing to do with the US, other than the fact Vinson and Elkins failed to disclose the fact they were working for a foreign country (Iraq) and failed to file as they were required to do under the Foreign Agent Registration Act. They were fined and subsequently notified the US government they were acting as foreign agents. Nothing to do with "seizing Iraq, installing puppet governments, or dictating what they do with their oil. It's on them and your opinion on seizing oil and such is just completely baseless.

We don't even have much of a presence in Iraq anymore. The British, French, and Germans have taken over the role of defending the border with Syria from Iraq throughout Eastern Syria up to the Euphrates. So we have no sway with Iraq regarding what they do. Your conspiracy theory is ludicrous. By what means are we controlling Iraq to do anything anymore. We no longer occupy Iraq for the most part. Our presence there is quite minimal.

 

Yikes. Even Confederate soldiers were often allowed to keep their sidearms and their horse.

 

Well, Pete, you missed out on reality and may be stuck in a MAGA time warp. The economy grew at about the same rate in Obama's last three years as Trump's first three.



Am I defending Obama? No, I'm condemning both equally.

Trump got nothing from Canada on the renegotiated NAFTA and only an agreement from Mexico to limit auto imports. He got bupkis from China on trade. He failed to fix healthcare even when he controlled Congress.

Maybe you should see that things are going your way and that the Orange Oaf can only screw things up by uniting the opposition.


Republicans used to know how to get things done with supporting jackasses like Trump.

 

I don't go for Saudi conspiracies, but blaming Biden for underinvestment worldwide in oil production is just as absurd. What you should be going after Biden about is his support for green technology not yet ready for prime time.

 

That was literally April and May of 2020, I do not miss those times

 

I'm sure we'll all sit around and wait until the next time the Chinese do just that. Maybe we'll keep funding their research in the meantime

 

Considering how poorly educated average Americans about economics, it's not surprising they would add a lot of credit card debt. As for gasoline prices, the cost of energy pales in comparison to the run up in asset values that Trump encouraged. He took far more from average folks than you seem able to comprehend.

Maybe you have a lot of assets and aren't a pal of average folks.

 

Tell us how the cost of gasoline is more significant than the run up of asset values.'

 

I agree we over-consume oil, but there's plenty of it and too much for the environment.

 

Green technology is here, and it is prime time. I get my home power and most of my car power from renewables (Residential wind turbine and solar panels). Prior to Obama/Biden solar incentives, there was very little solar in the US. Last year, of the new generation capacity in the United States, over 50% was solar. Since 2022, 26 GWatts of solar have been added in the US. To put this in perspective, the average nuclear power plant is 1 GWatt.

 

We know he's a rapist, crook, liar and general scumbag. He disgraced himself and his office by watching the riot on tv for three hours and doing nothing to end it. He did nothing special for the economy.

 

Move to California were it's crash through $5 a gallon - Biden * Newsom = idiocy^2.

 

My brother-in-law got $38,000 from the federal government for $50,000 worth of solar panels. Too soon. Electric cars aren't ready for prime time, either. We need a long-term technology strategy that emphasizes research now and implementation when we're ready. We can ill afford to waste money on premature green technology.

 

Are you incapable of advancing an argument and all you have are links?

 

Well, if that happens I suppose he'll have to learn how to say 谢谢 to the folks who brought him his Trump gas.

 

Very little. We've had ten years of low investment worldwide in oil production plus the Ukraine-Russia war.

@AARguy is advancing what I think he knows is a specious argument. I say that because I believe his claim about having an MBA.