It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Does the U.S. Deserve a Chunk of Iraq's Oil Revenue?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:57 PM

Does the U.S. Deserve a Chunk of Iraq's Oil Revenue?

The question is, does the U.S. stand to gain any reimbursements for the amount of money they spend in the war?

According to Pentagon figures, costs to the United States in fiscal 2008 run to the tune of $10.9 billion per month for the war in Iraq.

Congressman Ron Klein, D-Fla., introduced legislation last year that would require the Iraqi’s to pay for some of the U.S. operations going on in their country.

“The Iraqi government is sitting on the second-largest oil reserve in the world and expecting a multi-billion dollar budget windfall this year, yet the United States continues to finance their reconstruction,” said Mr. Klein.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 01:57 PM
This is sort of a tough question for me!

While we did help the Iraqi people get out from under the control of a corrupt dictatorship-like, and often brutal government, did they ask us to come into their country and do this for them?

I believe the answer to that is no.

But as an American, I would surely like to see some of the money we are spending over there reimbursed.

Here is a little more info on the bill proposed by the congressman, ...

The bill would require that all American funds for Iraq reconstruction and security forces training, as well as the cost of fuel for U.S. operations, to be repaid by Iraq as a loan.

Whether you support the war or not, he said, “it is time for real fiscal responsibility, and that means ending the blank checks to Iraq.”

This sounds "kinda" fair to me.

The US just can't afford to keep footing the $10 billion every month anymore, if they want us to stay over there, maybe they should start reimbursing the US taxpayers.

But then, on the other hand, the Iraqi people never asked the US to invade their country to help them get rid of Saddam and his government either, so why should they have to repay the US for something they didn't ask for.

But then again, the Iraqi government IS looking at a potential budget surplus of up to $80billion!

Well, I guess you can now see why it's a tough question, for me anyway.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:08 PM
Well the thing you have to know is that Iraq wasn't getting paid the money it could have been making while under Saddam. There were so many sanctions on Iraq that it stagnated the country. Almost all the wealth in the country went directly to Saddam. Although I will say that Saddam did spend plenty of money on the nation's infrastructure and education, the people themselves really didn't see to much in the way of wealth like you see in Saudia Arabia.

With Saddam gone more of the oil wealth will reach the poeple and help improve the nation as a whole. I don't think that Iraq has to foot the bill of our war, but they do have imense wealth under their sand and can expect much more money to be flowing into their country now that Saddam is gone. I think it would be cool if they just took a little of what they make to help us out, maybe as a act of good faith between allies.

But, like I said, they really dont have to fund our bill. Its not their responsibility, its ours.

If we invade countries and then make them pay for it, our wars won't stop until our population is decimated.

[edit on 10/1/09 by Pfeil]

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:33 PM
The sale of oil through the petro-dollar props up your currency.
Didn`t Saddam shift to oil sales in Euro`s just prior to his demise.
I believe it was switched back after the invasion, at a stroke, losing 17 % in revenues for the Iraqi`s.

So it could be said you already receive a chunk of Iraqi`s revenue. In fact any nation that buys oil, contributes to your economy .

So Iran were the other oil producer suggesting that they shift to sales in Euros .......

Emmmm...... that kinda talk won`t be tolerated . Energy has been described as a U.S "National Security" issue was it not !

Edit to correct %
From 13% to 17%

[edit on 10-1-2009 by UmbraSumus]

[edit on 10-1-2009 by UmbraSumus]

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:34 PM
who asked america to go to iraq in the first place??? maybe the wmd's made a call to bush on their secret hotline... that's how he knew they were in iraq!

usa meddled in iraqi affairs - by firstly supporting saddam and then turning against him when it was convenient. iraq owes america nothing - not a cent!

israel however, should pay for the the 'investments' that usa has made.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:36 PM
The war was supposed to be paid with that oil anyway. The whole thing is a mess and doesn't anyone wonder what happens when you take all that oil out of the ground. Solar and wind are the future (and others).

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:37 PM
I say we do deserve some.For the effort put in.
However we don't need it, because we have massive reserves of our own.
But the corporations will get a hold of it anyway.
The idea was to always use up foreign oil reserves first.
And then use our own.
Because if you could imagine if we sold and used all our oil first, then they would jack up the price of theirs and own us in every way.
The future is not oil though, its in clean energy.
There could come a time when America has massive oil reserves and never needs to use them because burning oil is no longer useful.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 02:38 PM
No. Not a penny.

We do not deserve a darn thing from them, except if they are generous enough, maybe they will offer forgiveness.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 04:32 PM
Not exactly.The government should find a way to pay for their war without leaving a debt to furure generations.They took it upon themselves to go to war and they should take it upon themselves to take care of the expenses.If they need to steal from their oil revenues than so be it.This is Bushes war and not the peoples war.We elected someone that did not act like a war mongerer and claimed he believed in a humble foreign policy.He than later used the events of sepember 11 to his advantage of selling the idea of a war to the people.The pentagon was more than happy to provide him with help by making appearances in the media thousands of times which helped with Bush's campaign of fear and revenge.It is typical of Republicans to act more libertarian unless it is a cause the specificaly believe in than they want us all to chip in.They constantly have double standards.The war mongerers can not be taken seriously,especialy when it is a Republican.Too often what they are about is themselves and anything that furthers their agenda and pocketbook.They have whined and bitched about tax and spend Democrats while ignoring that the Democrats tax increases are traditionaly much smaller than the out of control spending they cause.You can not be loyal to one party any more without being a traitor.Thgis is especialy true of republicans who have a tendancy to be the biggest hypocrites.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 05:38 PM
Trick Saddam into invading Kuwait, destroy his army as it retreats, impose sanctions that kill half a million Iraqi kids, bomb the country regularly and then invade all over again looking for invisible weapons that no-one believed existed... as soon as Sunni and Shia begin to unite (summer 2003) start a covert operation to sow dissension, restructure the country for the benefit of US corporations like Monsanto... build over a dozen permanent US military bases in the desert, cause, directly or indirectly the deaths of over a million people and force many more to flee...

With all that effort surely the US deserves to just take the Iraqi oil reserves, surely? [/sarcasm]

I think the sentiment of this thread is perhaps the most self-centred, insular and just plain dumb thing I've read on this board. And I've seen some doozies.

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 08:33 PM
The answer is a resounding NO . Aside from the myth that Iraq Oil was spouse to pay for the reconstruction of that country Iraqis and not US corporations should be rebuilding that country . Things went down in Post Saddam Iraq in part because corporate leaches moved in rather then Iraqis beginning to rebuild there country . Besides any such agreement where by US aid had to be paid back to the US and other countries would have economical crippled the new Iraq from the outset .

posted on Jan, 10 2009 @ 11:36 PM
I thought that was "the deal" in the first place. I'm sure - I think - I remember talk of reimbursement through oil when we first began this campaign. Whether we deserve it or not I'm not debating. I just thought this was the plan all along. I would prefer I didn't pay for it, but that's just selfish me.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:01 AM
No...the US deserves nothing.

It would be like something that happened in my old neighborhood.

My wife was talking to a friend of hers down the street, when that woman's neighbor from across the street came over on a riding lawnmower and started cutting the grass. My wife and her friend looked at her in bewilderment, and then resumed talking. Lawnmower lady then proceeds to cut the whole front yard.

After the woman was done, she came up and said "I'll be at home when you want to come pay me. 20 bucks would be nice"

My wife and her friend just looked at her, dumbfounded. Then, the woman hopped back on her lawnmower and left.

Needless to say, she never never got paid.

(edited for grammar correction)

[edit on 11-1-2009 by BRQuick]

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:22 AM
Do you deserve someone's wallet after you have savagely beaten them?

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:23 AM
The only thing we deserve is the hatred we are receiving from the rest of the world. We've earned it...actually our government earned it for the citizens will be held responsible for it even though so many are against it.'s almost impossible not to get angry if you look at what our country has done and is doing.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Pfeil

With Saddam gone more of the oil wealth will reach the poeple and help improve the nation as a whole.

I sort of doubt this. We opened up the oil fields to companies that Saddam would not let in by getting rid of him. That oil will now be extracted and sold, and some portion of the profits WILL go to the Iraqui government that we helped put in place to ensure that Iraq is now an open source for "capitalism" to work its magic.

And, I am sure some of the money the Iraqi government receives from the sale of Iraqs oil will trickle out into the economy and benefit the people, but the question is, how much benefit will they receive, and will it be more than they had under Saddam, and WOULD have had under another Iraqi leader chosen by the Iraqi people without our interference?

I think what has happened in Nigeria is a pretty good example of the kind of "democracy" corporations prefer. A leadership that takes its cut of the money gained by oil companies and then acts as a security force against its own native people to protect the corporations interests over that of the its people.

Under Saddam, the people had a certain lifestyle, which was not extravagant, but like you say, there were crushing sanctions over Iraq for quite a long time. However, most of that oil was still sitting there, like money in the bank. Now what will happen, and I will bet on it, is that the Iraqi people will be restored more or less to what they had with Saddam, (and not much more) and their oil will be extracted and make the oil companies rich, and the leaders who protect oil interests rich. So the people themselves will be left with what they already had, minus the "bank account" of oil that lay beneath their soil.

And, there will be continual civil disquiet (even if outright civil war is kept in check) because there will always be rebel groups that know the oil is being stolen from them to make "infidels" rich at their expense and so the Iraqis will have to tolerate that as well.

The US asking to be paid for tearing apart Iraq and killing so many of its people when the reason we claimed we did it has now been proven false by everyone, (And admitted false by Bush himself) is incredibly tasteless.

If we are going to be looking for a piece of the action, we should go to the people who are benefiting from our actions and get that money from them. In other words, if we have done anyone a favor that needs to be repayed it is the oil companies we have benefited not the Iraqis. Our leaders just know if they are seen taking the money directly from the oil companies it will be too obvious that the problem with Saddam was that he was sitting on too valuable a resource and not letting the big money players get a cut. Our leaders can admit they made a "mistake" but they dont want to have to admit it was never a mistake at all, but rather that they were acting as the thugs for big oil execs. That might get a rise out of even nice complacent Americans.

So instead, they are going to have to go in the back door to get their cut of the action, by going to the puppet government of Iraq and being paid for "saving" them from Saddam. Its a crock of crap if you ask me.

Not that Saddam was not an asshat. He was. But we like asshats as long as they let the corporate interests do their thing. What got him in trouble was that he wasnt playing ball with the big guys. Not what he did to his people or even Kuwait.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 12:56 AM
reply to post by David9176

Well, you really do need to separate our government from the people in todays world, not just here, but everywhere. Truthfully, you always have. We have the illusion of a government that works for the people. Not the fact of it. Look at the bailouts. Who got bailed out? It wasnt even only American companies that got bailed out. International ones got a piece of American pie as well.

The US government is just as much a security force against the people in favor of corporate interests at home as it is abroad. We just arent aware of it because for the most part, most of us are still slumbering under the illusion of democracy. We dont know we are being screwed because we think we are responsible for what they do. We have not yet completely accepted that our leaders are bought and paid for by international corporations who care nothing for us, or any other group of "average" people on the planet beyond figuring out how to extract more energy, (in the form of work and money and resources) from us.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:06 AM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I agree with most of what you stated. I've been completely against the bailouts and every other form of increased government that keeps getting shoved down our throats.

I hope that one day that enough people realize what is happening to them and see through the BS. My conscience tells me they won't. I hope i'm wrong.

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:07 AM
I think that George Bush deserves a chunk of shoes for what he has done in Iraq.

We all know that America has entered Iraq for its Oil and because Iraq could have caused a future threat on Israel.

After the first war on Iraq they did a siege on Iraq that lasted 10 years, the conditions in Iraq were really bad at this time.

I was watching the news during the period before the second war started.

The Americans were claiming that Sadam is hiding weapons of mass destruction even though he accepted the inspectors to go in and search.

But the war had to happen because of the primary objective of steeling the oil.

After Americans entered the country thousands got killed from the War and civil war until this day is going on.

After not finding any weapons of mass destruction they have justified their action by claimed they had wrong information and then they came up with the idea of getting read of Sadam so that they can give Iraq Democracy which I think they meant by it the Civil war that is now happening.

I think that America should stop interfering with other countries businesses as this is encouraging people around the globe to start hating Americans that are righteous from the government acts. In my opinion George bush has to be taken into trial the same way Sadam was being trialed since more innocents have died on his hand.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by nkhoury]

[edit on 11-1-2009 by nkhoury]

[edit on 11-1-2009 by nkhoury]

[edit on 11-1-2009 by nkhoury]

posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 01:36 AM

Originally posted by nkhoury

I think that America should stop interfering with other countries businesses as this is encouraging people around the globe to start hating Americans that are righteous from the government acts. In my opinion George bush has to be taken into trial the same way Sadam was being trialed since more innocents have died on his hand.

Yes, I also would like it if my leaders would stop acting as a strong arm for corporate interests around the world. They are squandering the American peoples wealth (resources, money and human life) fighting causes which do not benefit the American people, as well as causing horrific suffering to innocents abroad.

The reason our leaders fight these wars is because the corporations that benefit from our country acting as a mercenary army ensure that our leaders and their families and friends are rewarded financially. If not while the politician is in office, then afterward when the politician leaves office and takes a job in one of these companies for some exorbitant salary.

However the people of the world, not just America, need to get wise to this. International corporations dont care about religious conflict, or national conflict, or countries at all. They do business with each other no matter where their home office is. But they like the fact that we, the little people, sit around blaming each other and bickering amongst ourselves over whom among us is the more evil. Why? Because as long as we are fighting among ourselves, we are not paying attention to the simple fact that they are working together and always have been. The only leaders that are not in on it are leaders that are labeled as terrorists. (Or leaders who have countries without any resources the big guys want) Like Saddam, like Chavez. If a leader of a country is preventing these international business interests from exploiting a resource, they are terrorists.

And mind you, I am not saying all these guys we call "terrorists" are good guys. In many cases they are interested in exploiting their people for their own reasons. They are just as bad as the big movers in the world. What gets them in trouble, however, is not allowing the big guys have a cut of their action. The real powers of the world dont care what a government does to its people. They care if they get a cut of the action. In fact, if these little leaders are brutal to their own people, they will still do business with them, it just gives them leverage over the leader who is brutal. That way, if that leader pisses them off they can turn his own people against him and put in someone more to their liking. Or use his precarious standing with his own people as leverage to cut themselves a better deal.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in