The Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people?

I have been hearing this a lot from people lately. Mainly I have been hearing this from Donald rumsfeld and Paul wolfawitz and other top old school cold warriors in the bush administration. I thought about it for a while(somehow I have time to do this) and I thought, now this has come full circle(as things seem to always do) and don’t these cold warriors sound like communists! spouting about how the natural resources belong to the people. “the Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people” wow, I wish the US oil belonged to the US people. I wish I was born with tons of shares of oil stock and lots of stock of other natural resources too. Then maybe I would have thought of that. Do these guys know what they are saying? How will the US reconstruct a country from rubble and mass looting and create a basically single income country, where the oil belongs to everyone, without systematic socialism? Will the country be one giant corporation? And will the citizens of the US allow the people of Iraq to have equal rights to their resources when we don’t have that right? I think that we should question Federalizing our oil so that we can enjoy the same rights as the liberated Iraqi’s. We could take a much larger than present share of the profits to invest in research and design of renewable resources and alternative resources and pay for it by not having to fill the pockets of tons of oil billionaires. We don’t need huge amounts of competition in the oil industry to make it function at an economic and efficient pace since that pace will have to inevitably slow down, not speed up. After all it’s not a renewable resource like trees. It is an industry that has to be in the business of putting itself out of business if we want to create sustainable conditions for humans in the long run. I wish these guys knew how smart what they are saying really is. (I never thought id say that) But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander (never thought id say that either) and lets do it at home too!. You can claim that this war is not about oil all you want but there are two things in Iraq, sand and oil and I can tell you that we are not there for the sand. It is clear that corporate oil leadership in our government from either party will lead all of us down a road that will lead to more conflicts and place short term profits for the richest 1% over long term strength in terms of: economics, environment and peace. Let’s take our own oil back and let these oil billionaires go live on the tiny islands they claim to run their corporations from. Maybe these cold warriors turned socialists are geniuses!

What about people?

They get to keep their fingernails when they disagree with policy now! From my perspective, I dont care what they find in the way of WMD, or who gets how much oil. I just hope they can come up with a way to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. Their suffering might only be rivaled by the Jews at the hands of the Nazi's. The stories coming out of there are unfathomable. I know the task at hand seems impossible, that just means it hasn't done before (I cant remember where I heard that..) I absolutely promise that no matter what is done to rebuild that country, not everyone will be happy with it. I only hope that it is at least better than it was for the people.

I realize I deviated from your topic some, but I have been reading the horror stories today and felt a need to vent.

i totally agree with you. i would take sadamm out myself it given the opp. and i wrote that editorial yesterday and actually took that line out before sending it off to kiro. sometime s they read my stuff on air sometimes they dont. because i thought that same thing. the iraqi people are very lucky to have that oil because i dont think we would be there without it and they wouldnt have been liberated otherwise. so i guess i think its about oil but that isnt all bad and the liberation of an extreemely oppressed people proves that. but what i would love to get people thinking about is how do you actually create an economic system where tho oil belongs to everyone without completely compromising capitalism and creating either corporationisn (i think i just made that up) or socialism. i know what they mean by the statement- that they arnt here to take the oil from them. but we armed the hell out of sadamm so that he could stand up to the soviets and not become a socalist counrty and wouldnt it be ironic if we create a socialist country out of iraq? cuz the only other option i have come up with is to keep the oil in the privitized hands of the rich that became rich from running the regime that is toppled.(this same problem after WW2 lead to a much more socialistic europe today) So no matter what , we will have to begin with systematic redistributuion of wealth.(the present looting seems to be a beginning of this redistributiuon of wealth. the other way would be for the US to completely control the oil so that we could get a maximum return for it and then pass out royalty checks to the citizens or use the funds for reconstruction. that sounds like an indian reservation. no matter what we felt about the right or wrong of the war, I think this could be a scary perdicament to talk ourselves out of and we may have to watch Iraq enjoy medicine at a fraction of our prices and all kinds of right that we will not have. it will be interesting

The Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people just like the USA and all of its assests belongs to its citizens.

It is called democracy. If enough citizens agree on something and vote that way it will happen like it or not. We get what we deserve....

It will be interesting to watch what kind of country Iraq develops into over the next twenty years.

Chappy, I think your logic is off. In my opinion, the phrase "the iraqi oil belongs to the iraqi people" means more that it didn't belong in the hands of a military dictator instead of private individuals. Rather than state ownership over the means of production, we're more likely to see oil fields eventually sold off to private individuals/companies. This is a society that has not enjoyed capitalism such as their neighbor Kuwait has. There should be no reason why Iraq shouldn't live as well as they do. But they haven't, ever. Even before economic sanctions, Iraq's standard of living was pathetic as compared to its oil rich neighbors.

The Bush Doctrine is fairly anti-socialism. American style economics are mostlikely what will be tried out in Iraq. In fact, socialism and middle eastern culture are not that cohesive and would most likely break down rather quickly, replaced (coup) with another military dictator. Bush will probably extend Clinton's enlargement plan and make Iraq a democracy, probably in the federal model with Kurdistan as an autonomous zone.

Whether federalism or capitalism will be all that successful in Iraq is questionable. It will be an interesting experiment to say the least. Our hegemonic presence in the form of pax americanas follows a similar path as other hegemonies.... through our dominance, we'll find peace. Hopefully we'll be more successful than previous hegemonies.

Chappy,

In response to your post: "I think that we should question Federalizing our oil so that we can enjoy the same rights as the liberated Iraqi’s. We could take a much larger than present share of the profits to invest in research and design of renewable resources and alternative resources and pay for it by not having to fill the pockets of tons of oil billionaires. "

Sounds like a political platform to me!!! Get busy and good luck!!

Chappy.. It can be argued we have corporatism here. 10% of the population has control over 90% of the capital, I believe. Capitalism lends itself to a few profiting while most do not.

What I think will happen in Iraq is one of two things. Mostlikely, we're going to be there for the next 10 years or so to ensure Iraq can function as a democracy with capitalism as its economic reality. OR, we're going to jump ship early and the same oligarchs that had control before the war will once again take the reigns of the economy.

Either way, I think that an oligarchy will establish itself in Iraq- either the old returning or a new class of resourceful capitalists. Fairly common in single-"crop" economies. Unfortunate, but we can look at the Russian Federation as an example of how when the reigns of power are changed, the people usually have very little power or economic opportunity as a result of that change.

Don't the people in Alaska get oil checks from the state?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ET:
[QB] The Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people just like the USA and all of its assests belongs to its citizens.

It is called democracy.


I disagree ....democracy which America is not (it is a Republic) does not say anything about private ownership. that is capitalism that decrees private ownership of resources! In a democracy everyone votes on everything, everything.! it is very slow and cumbersome. that is why america is a republic where representatives make the votes for us on almost everything excepth electing the representatives. But which iraqis will be chosen for this private ownership of the oil? and if so dont they mean that the iraqi oil will belong to some of the iraqi's? so how will we choose who gets to be the lucky ones who receive the gift of a privatised oil industry and therefore the owner of most of the countries resources. If we give it to the people with the most oil experience- it will be the rich of the former regime. will they redistribute everything and start even in terms of resources or will some receive ownership of land and resources and others not. remember everything was in the hands of one person before the regime change so how can we create the kind of inequality economically that is necessary for a capitalist society to function. i may not be expressing this thought well but what i mean is that if ten people all have one apple. there willbe no trading of apples. but if one has an apple and one has bread and one water ect... they will trade (market ecomomy) with eachother. In a basically single income single product country like this. how do we get private ownership of enough varied goods to begin this. and those goods need to be basically equal in value but inequal in nature so that the guy with the water has about say $100 worth of water and the guy with the bread about $100 in bread and so on . the problem is that there are not enough resources to pass out to everyone let alone on an equal basis. I think it will come down to the choice of setting up intentionally inequal societies (which makes it hard to win the hearts and minds of those that dont fair as well in the redistribution) or setting up socialism. and socialism isnt necessarilly a bad thing. we are 7th in the world for standard of living and every country,with the exception of singapore, that enjoys a higher standard of living than us is a more socialist country. Like we all agree--- it will be vvvvverry intteressssting

cwu girl- are you in the business or economics dept? at cwu. it sounds like it. my degree was international business with a focus on latin america. i think this just may turn out to be a nice thread where we can all pick up a lil info. thanks for the comments

SAND is a good thing.
Think I will head for SAND island and do a little fishing.
There is plenty of SAND there for everyone, and I expect a Springer for me!

It's all about SAND!

ps . remember that the term hegemonic or hegemony is allways a buzz word for socialistic philosophies. like i sai though... great conversation

Neither!! Political Science and Public Policy, emphasis in political philosophy.

Gutz is correct, I heard during one of the last storms all of Florida's beaches were polluted. There is no better source for sand then Iraq. That is why we are so afraid they will set the oil wells on fire, it makes it harder to find the sand.

Have you seen the glass they can make out of that sand, it makes Swarovski crystal look foggy.

Plus we have a very low sand supply of our own to rely upon. Next time someone pulls an Exxon Valdez we can just come in and dump some fresh Iraq sand over the beach and call it good. No cleanup required, it is like Dawn; it cuts right through the grease.

"Hegemony" as a term is used every day and doesn't at all neccessarily have to do with economics. Hegemonic powers through history include, the roman empire, british empire, and until recently, we had dual hegemonic powers in the form of the US and the Soviet Union.

Hegemony simply means dominance. We are the dominant power in the world today. As a result, we are seeking to bring peace through our hegemonic status- rogue nation states are reigned in to protect our national security and further world stability. Its not at all unlike the Cold War when countries such as Turkey, Iran, etc, falling to the communists were seen as a direct threats to our security despite their geography, capablities, etc, which leaned towards them not being terribly threatening.

i had a leak in a flat roof i did a couple of weeks back and a renter said that his sand blaster got ruined and it would be $200 to replace the sand. maybe the sand prices jumped too. $200? does anyone have a sandblaster and if so is this true ? or is he trying to get a lil more out of me than he deserves

How about a paybach scheme that give the USA:

1 gallon of crude for every ounce of terror

Aunty

You gave me an idea, a sand store.

I think I am going order my sand now before it becomes deregulated and the prices jump up.

Think of all those people that became rich selling the Mt. Saint Helens ash.

I could make Iraq sand
Christmas Tree Ornaments
Vases
Sell the sand as a raw material

I will get a little booth on Highway 2 next to the guy selling the rugs

cwu girl- i didnt mean to imply that hegemony is an economic subject . you are right that hegemonic is usually refering to leadership or dominance over friends, neighbor states, or allies but i dont think that former hegemonies or future ones will be best for the general population of our planets future. in essence we will be marketing ourselves as the "benevolent dictator" of the planet and the only thing that will change our position is for someone to develope a greater military and therefore become the hegemonic presence. we are rapidly losing our economic clout and it is know that india will have an economy much larger than ours in 10-15 years. we dont need more arms races. especially now that it is clear how dangerouse and cheap chem and bio weapons are and the invitation this gives small nations to instantly put themselves on the same plane militarilly as us. thats why koreas nuclear program is so scary. In short- I dont think that we will be able to rely upon hegemony as much as we think in such a rapidly changing world. after all... all the military power in the world (hegemony) did not stop sept. 11

Dudes....

When Rumsfeld stated that "Iraqi oil belongs to Iraqi people" he was just inferring that the oil is a public resource. Just like our natural resources are publically owned as opposed to privately owned. It doesn't mean that "we the people" own the resource, but that the resource is managed by the government for the public good. As opposed to the resource being owned and managed wholly by a private entity whose intentions are principally profit and growth. I guess in the case of Iraq (B4 GW), the government not only managed the resource but essentially profited from it as well (big time). Not the case with our publically managed resources. WDFW is not a filthy rich agency (although some may argue that they're not managing the resource for the public good either--ah well, an argument for another thread). Rumsfeld was probably also making the point that we aren't going to take the oil for ourselves even though we ran over the country.