NationStates Jolt Archive

From The Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece).
The article is rather long, but here’s a few interesting tidbits…


So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all? As the number of US soldiers killed since the invasion rises past the 3,000 mark, and President George Bush gambles on sending in up to 30,000 more troops, The Independent on Sunday has learnt that the Iraqi government is about to push through a law giving Western oil companies the right to exploit the country's massive oil reserves.
And Iraq's oil reserves, the third largest in the world, with an estimated 115 billion barrels waiting to be extracted, are a prize worth having. As Vice-President Dick Cheney noted in 1999, when he was still running Halliburton, an oil services company, the Middle East is the key to preventing the world running out of oil.



The Independent on Sunday has obtained a copy of an early draft which was circulated to oil companies in July. It is understood there have been no significant changes made in the final draft. The terms outlined to govern future PSAs are generous: according to the draft, they could be fixed for at least 30 years. The revelation will raise Iraqi fears that oil companies will be able to exploit its weak state by securing favourable terms that cannot be changed in future.
Iraq's sovereign right to manage its own natural resources could also be threatened by the provision in the draft that any disputes with a foreign company must ultimately be settled by international, rather than Iraqi, arbitration.
In the July draft obtained by The Independent on Sunday, legislators recognise the controversy over this, annotating the relevant paragraph with the note, "Some countries do not accept arbitration between a commercial enterprise and themselves on the basis of sovereignty of the state."
It is not clear whether this clause has been retained in the final draft.
Under the chapter entitled "Fiscal Regime", the draft spells out that foreign companies have no restrictions on taking their profits out of the country, and are not subject to any tax when doing this.
"A Foreign Person may repatriate its exports proceeds [in accordance with the foreign exchange regulations in force at the time]." Shares in oil projects can also be sold to other foreign companies: "It may freely transfer shares pertaining to any non-Iraqi partners." The final draft outlines general terms for production sharing agreements, including a standard 12.5 per cent royalty tax for companies.
It is also understood that once companies have recouped their costs from developing the oil field, they are allowed to keep 20 per cent of the profits, with the rest going to the government. According to analysts and oil company executives, this is because Iraq is so dangerous, but Dr Muhammad-Ali Zainy, a senior economist at the Centre for Global Energy Studies, said: "Twenty per cent of the profits in a production sharing agreement, once all the costs have been recouped, is a large amount." In more stable countries, 10 per cent would be the norm.



Mr Muttitt echoed warnings that unfavourable deals done now could unravel a few years down the line, just when Iraq might become peaceful enough for development of its oil resources to become attractive. The seeds could be sown for a future struggle over natural resources which has led to decades of suspicion of Western motives in countries such as Iran.
Iraqi trade union leaders who met recently in Jordan suggested that the legislation would cause uproar once its terms became known among ordinary Iraqis.
"The Iraqi people refuse to allow the future of their oil to be decided behind closed doors," their statement said. "The occupier seeks and wishes to secure... energy resources at a time when the Iraqi people are seeking to determine their own future, while still under conditions of occupation."
The resentment implied in their words is ominous, and not only for oil company executives in London or Houston. The perception that Iraq's wealth is being carved up among foreigners can only add further fuel to the flames of the insurgency, defeating the purpose of sending more American troops to a country already described in a US intelligence report as a cause célèbre for terrorism.


Despite US and British denials that oil was a war aim, American troops were detailed to secure oil facilities as they fought their way to Baghdad in 2003. And while former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld shrugged off the orgy of looting after the fall of Saddam's statue in Baghdad, the Oil Ministry - alone of all the seats of power in the Iraqi capital - was under American guard.



These are just some of the interesting passages that I plugged out while reading through the article. They seem to suggest that oil was, if not the primary reason, then one of the major reasons why the war was thought.

The article points out, that while such agreements might be acceptable under normal circumstances, the exact terms in this agreement, as well as the fact that only western companies have been allowed into this deal, is very disturbing. Add to this the fact that not even the Iraqi parliament seems to be aware of this agreement, it’s easy to see why some people might cry foul.

Thoughts…?

Be prepared for whines of "But I'm not getting any cheap gas" from the average Bushite as their defense.

As if the common American should profit from the nation building policies of the government. The arrogance. The benefits of corporate rape of another country's natural resources go only to the corporations themselves.

These are just some of the interesting passages that I plugged out while reading through the article. They seem to suggest that oil was, if not the primary reason, then one of the major reasons why the war was thought.

The article points out, that while such agreements might be acceptable under normal circumstances, the exact terms in this agreement, as well as the fact that only western companies have been allowed into this deal, is very disturbing. Add to this the fact that not even the Iraqi parliament seems to be aware of this agreement, it’s easy to see why some people might cry foul.

Thoughts…?

My thoughts? A stupid idea.

Anyone else see parallels to the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and the D'Arcy Oil Concession dispute??

This will bite us in the ass, eventually...hopefully the Iraqi Parliament will strike down this agreement.

This will bite us in the ass, eventually...hopefully the Iraqi Parliament will strike down this agreement.

But how can they strike it down if they don't even know that it exists?

Oil was merely a bonus tidbit.

The invasion was primarily about Il Douche wanting show Daddy he has a bigger dick by taking out Saddam to avenge him for the "assassination plot."

I really, really do not get why people think that "going in for the oil" is a bad reason. Oil is needed for survival. Someone who controls it can indeed use it as a weapon of mass destruction by controlling the flow. One does not need nasty bio- chemo- or nuclear weapons to seriously hurt others.

Going in for the oil makes sense.

However, I hate going to war under false pretense.

I really, really do not get why people think that "going in for the oil" is a bad reason. Oil is needed for survival. Someone who controls it can indeed use it as a weapon of mass destruction by controlling the flow. One does not need nasty bio- chemo- or nuclear weapons to seriously hurt others.

Going in for the oil makes sense.

However, I hate going to war under false pretense.


Perhaps because some of us believe in civilization rather that might-is-right?

Seriously, put yourself in their shoes. You have just been invaded, for no particular reason, and now the invaders are sucking your country dry. How would you feel?

It was about WMDs, but those we didn't find packed up and left

Then it was about the now roasting ex-dictator's violations of the ceasefire

And on and on and on..

I'm not worried, nor do I care. If we get cheap oil, I'm thrilled and if it keeps it from the Chinese, great. It's going to help the Iraqi industry get back up again regardless, so I'm fine with it.

Perhaps because some of us believe in civilization rather that might-is-right?

Seriously, put yourself in their shoes. You have just been invaded, for no particular reason, and now the invaders are sucking your country dry. How would you feel?

So the Iraqis are not getting any money for it?


Wow, we are REALLY gonna get cheap oil.

As Vice-President Dick Cheney noted in 1999, when he was still running Halliburton, an oil services company, the Middle East is the key to preventing the world running out of oil.
WTF? Is he going to have infinite oil as one of his three wishes off an Arabian genie in a lamp?

So the Iraqis are not getting any money for it?


Wow, we are REALLY gonna get cheap oil.

Well, as far as I understand it they are. Just not as much as they should.

It was about WMDs, but those we didn't find packed up and left
It was never there to be found.

Then it was about the now roasting ex-dictator's violations of the ceasefire
It never was, really.

It was about WMDs, but those we didn't find packed up and left
Bull.

Then it was about the now roasting ex-dictator's violations of the ceasefire

say it with me now. Bull.

I really, really do not get why people think that "going in for the oil" is a bad reason. Oil is needed for survival. Someone who controls it can indeed use it as a weapon of mass destruction by controlling the flow. One does not need nasty bio- chemo- or nuclear weapons to seriously hurt others.

Invading other countries for their resources is theft, plain and simple. It's no different than me breaking in to someone's house and robbing them, except perhaps on a much vaster scale.

Oil was merely a bonus tidbit.

The invasion was primarily about Il Douche wanting show Daddy he has a bigger dick by taking out Saddam to avenge him for the "assassination plot."

I actually don't really disagree with this point of view. Admittedly, I would opt for putting some more nuance here and there, but that would only be on the framework of this basic argument.

If we really wanted oil that badly, we could have stomped over the environmentalists and drilled in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. This is a bogus conspiracy theory.

Given the primary motivation for going to Iraq has been said to be to "free the people from a dictator", and considering that there are many dictators in the world who are being left quite well enough alone by our new wave of democratic efforts, it is in my opinion that anyone who believes that securing the oil fields in Iraq were not, if not a reason, at least a major consideration in this war is simply intellectually dishonest.

If we really wanted oil that badly, we could have stomped over the environmentalists and drilled in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. This is a bogus conspiracy theory.

nonsense. If modern public opinion polls have shown us anything, it's that the average citizens care more about the life of an American moose than of an Iraqi child.

I'm not worried, nor do I care. If we get cheap oil, I'm thrilled and if it keeps it from the Chinese, great. It's going to help the Iraqi industry get back up again regardless, so I'm fine with it.

Of course you don't care. You're just another self serving American who couldn't care less if that oil were somehow coming from great big processing plants wherein non-Americans are being shoved in soylent green style. But if it were American's being shoved in, oh no, you can't have that now can you? That'd be inhuman.

People like you are the kind that wonders why the dog ripped out their throats after they've been tasering it for weeks on end.

it's that the average citizens care more about the life of an American moose than of an Iraqi child.

I think that might be a slight exaggeration, although moose are majestic creatures. However, if we drill in the National Arctic Wildlife Reserve, no animals will be affected as it is the middle of a frozen wasteland that is completely devoid of life. It's almost as if God wanted us to drill there safely.

However, if we drill in the National Arctic Wildlife Reserve, no animals will be affected as it is the middle of a frozen wasteland that is completely devoid of life.

This statement is manifestly untrue. Alaska is not devoid of life. Along with local flora, local fauna consists of Caribou, Wolverines, polar and grizzly bears, muskox, wolves and numerous species of migratory and non migratory birds.

But then again, what could I expect from someone who is self confessed to have been home schooled by an extremely bigoted and ignorant woman?

However, if we drill in the National Arctic Wildlife Reserve, no animals will be affected as it is the middle of a frozen wasteland that is completely devoid of life.

Completely devoid of life? I think you have a pretty shitty definition of wildlife reserve.

This statement is manifestly untrue. Alaska is not devoid of life. Along with local flora, local fauna consists of Caribou, Wolverines, polar and grizzly bears, muskox, wolves and numerous species of migratory and non migratory birds.

I am not claiming that Alaska is devoid of life. I am simply stating that the portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve under which a significant quantity of oil can be found is a frozen wasteland. Much of Alaska is not, but that particular region is.

I am not claiming that Alaska is devoid of life. I am simply stating that the portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve under which a significant quantity of oil can be found is a frozen wasteland. Much of Alaska is not, but that particular region is.



"Impacts of Year-Round Oil Field Development
If winter exploration activities, including seismic surveys and drilling, find economical amounts of oil, then full-scale construction and development of oil fields might occur to produce oil and gas on a year-round basis. In addition to affecting muskoxen, polar bears and other arctic-adapted resident species, oil and gas production would likely also impact caribou and birds that migrate to the 1002 Area during the brief summer period for calving and nesting."
http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm

"Canada believes opening up the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas development would seriously disrupt the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd and threaten other migratory wildlife Canada shares with the United States.

The herd of more than 129,000 caribou ranges across northeastern Alaska, northern Yukon and the Mackenzie Delta in the Northwest Territories. Thousands of Aboriginal people in both countries depend on the herd for food and for the survival of their traditional way of life.

In 1987 Canada and the United States signed the Agreement on the Conservation of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, under which they agreed to protect the herd and its habitat and to consult promptly if either the herd or its habitat were damaged or its migration routes disrupted. U.S. and Canadian scientific experts have concluded that any development in the coastal plain could pose a major threat to the calving and migration patterns of the herd.

Canada believes that the best way to ensure the future of the Porcupine caribou herd is to designate the Arctic coastal plain as wilderness, thereby providing equal protection on both sides of the border for this shared wildlife resource.

In 1984, with the creation of the Northern Yukon (now Ivvavik) National Park, Canada permanently protected as wilderness a large portion of the herd's habitat, including an area of the Yukon coastal plain where the caribou occasionally calve. The creation of Vuntut National Park south of Ivvavik put additional areas of the caribou's habitat off-limits to development. Most of the rest of the herd's Canadian range is located in areas that have either been withdrawn from development or are subject to Aboriginal land claim agreements that place stringent restrictions on development.

Much of the herd's Alaskan habitat lies within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, created in 1960 and expanded twenty years later under the Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act. Although development is prohibited in most of the refuge, the calving grounds lie in an area east of Prudhoe Bay that Congress set aside for possible oil and gas development under Section 1002 of the act. The act instructs the Secretary of the Interior to consult with Canada in evaluating the impact of development,"particularly with respect to the Porcupine Caribou Herd."

The 1.5-million-acre coastal area known as the 1002 lands is home to a rich variety of other wildlife--wolves, wolverines, polar bear, barren-ground grizzlies, muskox and Dall sheep. About 140 species of birds, including bald eagles, tundra swans and snow geese, use the area as a staging ground for migration. Many of these species migrate between Canada and the United States.

Canada is most concerned about the effects of development on the Porcupine caribou, whose life cycle makes it particularly susceptible to disturbance."
http://www.canadianembassy.org/environment/development-en.asp

It wasn't about oil, it wasn't about liberation. It was't cause Jr. wanted to show daddy up. It was because we as a people were to stupid to see that we elected a complete dumbass to lead us. He invaded (To my only thought right now) cause he was in the neighborhood.

It wasn't about oil, it wasn't about liberation. It was't cause Jr. wanted to show daddy up. It was because we as a people were to stupid to see that we elected a complete dumbass to lead us. He invaded (To my only thought right now) cause he was in the neighborhood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJpo77fido0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJpo77fido0

The fact you knew that this exsisted says so much about your free time lol.;)

Anyway I like it.

WOW!

You couldn't think of a better way to support terrorism and bring back another dictator if you tried. It might work for a short period while a significant garrison force (at least as big as the one there now) is maintained. As soon as there is any significant reduction, local nationalism driven by the possibility of stashing large amounts of hard currency overseas will ensure another despot takes over.

About the best the west can hope for is that fundamental islamic radicalism will take over and eventually be thrown out by fundamental islamic moderates.

Democracy as the west understands it, freedom as the west understands it, equality as the west understands it; none of these in our lifetimes or even our children's childrens lifetime.

The fact you knew that this exsisted says so much about your free time lol.;)

Anyway I like it.

*cries*

What Canada says about oil drilling.

Ha-ha. Canada. What a joke. It's a good thing we don't listen to Canada about anything, or look where we would have ended up.

Ha-ha. Canada. What a joke. It's a good thing we don't listen to Canada about anything, or look where we would have ended up.

Um... with healthcare? Nice response, though. I mean, the whole not responding to the facts thing.

Um... with healthcare? Nice response, though. I mean, the whole not responding to the facts thing.

That's what trolls do. Incidentally, it's also what the ignorant and ill-informed do too :)

Ha-ha. Canada. What a joke. It's a good thing we don't listen to Canada about anything, or look where we would have ended up.

Let's see.

You didn't listen to Canada.
You ended up in Iraq.





So, how's that working out for you so far?

It was about WMDs, but those we didn't find packed up and left


Our source for intelligence about Iraq's alleged WMD's was one informant, codenamed "Curveball". Curveball was an Iraqi defector who claimed to be a chemical engineer working for Saddam's chemical weapons program. He was given to us by the German intelligence agency, the Bundesnachrichtendienst. This informant was absolutely unreliable, he was an alcoholic and the Germans called him a "Fabricator" basically a liar, he was given large cash payments for his information, which he supplied for his own benefit. The rest of our intel, which was put into a national intelligence estimate and submitted to congress was out of date, as far back as the late 80's.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1451167,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7369843/site/newsweek/

From The Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece).
The article is rather long, but here’s a few interesting tidbits…

These are just some of the interesting passages that I plugged out while reading through the article. They seem to suggest that oil was, if not the primary reason, then one of the major reasons why the war was thought.

The article points out, that while such agreements might be acceptable under normal circumstances, the exact terms in this agreement, as well as the fact that only western companies have been allowed into this deal, is very disturbing. Add to this the fact that not even the Iraqi parliament seems to be aware of this agreement, it’s easy to see why some people might cry foul.

Thoughts…?
I have maintained before the first bomb was dropped on Baghdad that it is "all about oil". I teased Corny endlessly calling the invasion:

Operation
Iraq
Liberation

Fass posted the follwing video a few days ago. I found it funny, yet sad, but true.

Robert Newman History of Oil (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967)

Only 45 minutes of your life to watch.

Ha-ha. Canada. What a joke. It's a good thing we don't listen to Canada about anything, or look where we would have ended up.

Yes, what a joke. A First World economy, one of the highest standards of living in the world, low crime, incredibly friendly people, very high civil liberties rating. Boy, I'd hate to live there. :rolleyes:

I am not claiming that Alaska is devoid of life. I am simply stating that the portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve under which a significant quantity of oil can be found is a frozen wasteland. Much of Alaska is not, but that particular region is.

Said fauna are found in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve itself. You have no evidence to back up your claim that "the portion where a significant quantity of oil can be found is a frozen wasteland"

And do not bother linking sites belonging to oil company/neocon sponsored "research". They have no interest in being truthful.

These are just some of the interesting passages that I plugged out while reading through the article. They seem to suggest that oil was, if not the primary reason, then one of the major reasons why the war was thought.

Thoughts…?
Duh? Seriously--most wars are about resources. Why should this one have been any different, especially with these assclowns in charge? On the news today, when talking about the airstrikes in Somalia, it was mentioned in passing that Somalia has just discovered oil. And now we're interested. What a shock.

Duh? Seriously--most wars are about resources. Why should this one have been any different, especially with these assclowns in charge? On the news today, when talking about the airstrikes in Somalia, it was mentioned in passing that Somalia has just discovered oil. And now we're interested. What a shock.

We were interested in Somalia long before oil was discovered there. During the 1980s, the U.S. subsidized Siad Barre's dictatorship to the tune of about $100 million per year and held military exercises with the Somali military.

It was about WMDs, but those we didn't find packed up and left

Then it was about the now roasting ex-dictator's violations of the ceasefire

And on and on and on..

I'm not worried, nor do I care. If we get cheap oil, I'm thrilled and if it keeps it from the Chinese, great. It's going to help the Iraqi industry get back up again regardless, so I'm fine with it.

Wanna know what the pictures of WMD were? They were pictures of a semi.... carrying a water tank through the desert.

oooo scarey. The dictator might water poison his own people.

Do you honestly believe everything they tell you on TV?

Yes, what a joke. A First World economy, one of the highest standards of living in the world, low crime, incredibly friendly people, very high civil liberties rating. Boy, I'd hate to live there. :rolleyes:
It is brutal man....really brutal, but someone has to live there, so I am taking it on the chin for mankinds' sake. :D

It is brutal man....really brutal, but someone has to live there, so I am taking it on the chin for mankinds' sake. :D

What are doctors like?

It is brutal man....really brutal, but someone has to live there, so I am taking it on the chin for mankinds' sake. :D

lol

By the way, I think your Location ("10,000 or bust!") needs updating. ;)

lol

By the way, I think your Location ("10,000 or bust!") needs updating. ;)
Why? It demonstrates that I can set goals and achieve them. :D

Actually, my new goal and resolution is to retire from NSG, and that will probably be within the next month or two.

Why? It demonstrates that I can set goals and achieve them. :D

Actually, my new goal and resolution is to retire from NSG, and that will probably be within the next month or two.

Don't. :(

Don't. :(
When my wife arrives here (probably in Feb.), it will be time to get on with the second half of my life. :) I think she will keep me too busy for NSG. :D

Oil was merely a bonus tidbit.

Petroleum is nice, yes, but petrodollars are the real prize.

The invasion was primarily about Il Douche wanting show Daddy he has a bigger dick by taking out Saddam to avenge him for the "assassination plot."

The reason you mentioned was merely a bonus tidbit.

Petroleum is nice, yes, but petrodollars are the real prize.
Yeah, especially since Iraq was trading oil in Euros before the invasion, but switched back to dollars once America was in control.

Now Iran has just switched to trading oil in Euros.......

From The Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132574.ece).
The article is rather long, but here’s a few interesting tidbits…

I don't see why getting oil out of the deal is necessarily bad. Rather, it is indeed in the interest of the United States to secure sources as such, especially considering the monopoly OPEC has. This is a very shrewd move, and one that will undoubtedly prove the clincher in securing the United States against its dependence on other countries' generosity and monopolizing asshattery.

I don't see why getting oil out of the deal is necessarily bad. Rather, it is indeed in the interest of the United States to secure sources as such, especially considering the monopoly OPEC has. This is a very shrewd move, and one that will undoubtedly prove the clincher in securing the United States against its dependence on other countries' generosity and monopolizing asshattery.

So, its cool to beat people up and take their stuff?

So, its cool to beat people up and take their stuff?

Yeah.

If you want to see it that way.

Yeah.

If you want to see it that way.

I can't really see it any other way...

I can't really see it any other way...

Well, it's not really so simplistic. They "want" (certain circles close to the Bush admin) to give us oil. The US would be foolish to say "No no, we fucked up your country, here YOU keep it." Integrity seems to, unfortunately, have no place in international politics. Instead, we look at it as an opportunity to secure our own national interest, by keeping said oil OUT of the hands of those who would most likely use it against us. The US has a real way with keeping up an international image, and considering the way the world is turning (politically), this is a kind of "insurance" against leverage foreign countries may use. Incidentally, this is also now a convenient excuse to maintain troops in the country.

I don't see why getting oil out of the deal is necessarily bad. Rather, it is indeed in the interest of the United States to secure sources as such, especially considering the monopoly OPEC has. This is a very shrewd move, and one that will undoubtedly prove the clincher in securing the United States against its dependence on other countries' generosity and monopolizing asshattery.

How is OPEC a monopoly.

It is a cartel of oil producing countries that between them produce about 43% of the world's crude oil.

Well, it's not really so simplistic. They "want" (certain circles close to the Bush admin) to give us oil. The US would be foolish to say "No no, we fucked up your country, here YOU keep it." Integrity seems to, unfortunately, have no place in international politics. Instead, we look at it as an opportunity to secure our own national interest, by keeping said oil OUT of the hands of those who would most likely use it against us. The US has a real way with keeping up an international image, and considering the way the world is turning (politically), this is a kind of "insurance" against leverage foreign countries may use. Incidentally, this is also now a convenient excuse to maintain troops in the country.

Well, yeah. But we shouldn't have fucked up their country in the first place for the oil. And other equally notorious reasons.

How is OPEC a monopoly.

It is a cartel of oil producing countries that between them produce about 43% of the world's crude oil.

Okay, it's not technically a monopoly. But it has enough influence that its decisions can affect the world market as if it were. 43% is a crapload of oil.

Well, yeah. But we shouldn't have fucked up their country in the first place for the oil. And other equally notorious reasons.

You're right. Oil was part of the reason, although it most probably played a very significant part of the underlying premise of invading (maybe Bush really isn't that stupid...). Now we're there, we can either back this truck up, leave it to its own demise, or stay awhile, and help it along. Fact is, we're getting oil out of the deal somewhere along the line. International politicking will accept nothing less.

So, its cool to beat people up and take their stuff?

This is how just about every First World nation today became a First World nation. Sad when you think about it. :(

This is how just about every First World nation today became a First World nation. Sad when you think about it. :(

Actually, yeah, you've got a point there. The strong have, do, and will continue to prove their strength by using it.

This is how just about every First World nation today became a First World nation. Sad when you think about it. :(

QFT.

QFT.

I don't know what QFT means.

This is how just about every First World nation today became a First World nation. Sad when you think about it. :(

We should have listened to Eisenhower. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

I don't know what QFT means.

Quoted For Truth.

Quoted For Truth.

Oh, THANKS! :)

Oh, THANKS! :)

You're welcome.

Actually, yeah, you've got a point there. The strong have, do, and will continue to prove their strength by using it.

Well, there's governments that are strong in numbers, and then there are governments that are strong in morals. Try and guess which one the American government is not.

As Vice-President Dick Cheney noted in 1999, when he was still running Halliburton, an oil services company, the Middle East is the key to preventing the world running out of oil.

Hooray, oil's going to last forever now.