Reply With Quote
According to the latest Iraq status report from the US Department of State, Canada and Turkey have no troops in Iraq. The total number of non-US troops in Iraq as of September 12, 2007 is 11,732.
http://www.state.gov/do ents/organization/92176.pdf
Huh? "...hundreds of thousands" of troops?
To say that is an overstatement, would the understatement of the century.
Canada doesnt even have a military that composes of "hundreds of thousands" of troops.
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features...-and-structurePersonnel of the Canadian Forces
Canadian Forces personnel consist of two main groups: Regular Forces and Reserve Forces. Regular Forces, which represent the backbone of the military, include personnel who are enrolled for continuing full-time military service. As of May 2007, there were approximately 62,000 Regular Force members in the Canadian Forces (Department of National Defence, 2007). Reserve Forces, in contrast, include personnel that serve on a temporary or part-time basis, and may be activated whenever the military is in need of additional manpower. As of May 2007, there were approximately 25,000 Reserve Force members in the Canadian Forces (Department of National Defence, 2007).
Canada’s military is small relative to leading militaries in the world. The following table compares Canada to the top 10 military nations by total available military personnel.
Comparison of Available Military Personnel (2006)
Country - Total Personnel - World Rank
Iran 11,770,000 1
China 7,024,000 2
North Korea 5,995,000 3
South Korea 5,209,000 4
India 3,773,300 5
Russia 3,037,000 6
United States 2,369,239 7
Taiwan 1,965,000 8
Brazil 1,687,600 9
Pakistan 1,449,000 10
Canada 98,550 34
*Includes active personnel, reserves, and units ready for mobilization.
(Source: Global Firepower.com, Total Available Military Personnel, 2006)
Check that, they dont even have an available military that composes one-hundred thousand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_role_in_the_invasion_of_AfghanistanFollowing the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 in the United States, Canada was the third largest contributor to the NATO-led invasion of Afghanistan, after the United States and the United Kingdom. Of the approximately 15,000 Canadian troops who have been stationed in Afghanistan, 2,500 remain as the standard complement as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_role_in_the_invasion_of_Afghanistan
So Canada has at most at any one time, 15000 troops stationed in the world police role. So, in order to meet your statement "hundreds of thousands", the Turks should have anywhere between 85000 and 185000 troops deployed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt that highly.
According to the latest Iraq status report from the US Department of State, Canada and Turkey have no troops in Iraq. The total number of non-US troops in Iraq as of September 12, 2007 is 11,732.
http://www.state.gov/do ents/organization/92176.pdf
And no, I didn't forget Poland.
You did complain about the length.
The production contracts sought by the US oilcos are for 30 years, way too long to recoup infrastructure investment.Bangladesh, Suriname, Indonesia, Columbia, China, Russia, etc.
But Production sharing contracts are NOT the norm for the main oil-producing countries, that now own their oil and
1) write lease contracts, because the countries make more money, to (foreign) oil companies, or
2) have outright nationalized oil companies.
The primary objective of the Iraq invasion was regime change for a regime friendly to US oilcos. The still-born Iraqi oil law, vehemently opposed by the Iraqi oil industry that sees it as giving away control over, even ownership of, was written to produce what US oilcos wanted, production sharing contracts.
from http://www.gasandoil.com/ogel/sample...kreview_13.htm
Seriously, do a google for "oil fields production sharing contracts" and see how many different state oil companies are on that list that pops up.The production-sharing contract has become, over the last 30 years, the probably most dominant form of granting access to oil&gas exploration and development to international petroleum companies in developing countries. Even Russia has adopted a form of production-sharing contract (albeit quite distinct). It has replaced the concessions/licenses as the main form of petroleum-related mining le; its distinct character is that production is shared (reflecting a conceptual root in the sharing of harvest between landowner and tenant) rather than tax/royalties being paid and that the foreign investor (now ""contractor") is in a contractual relationship with a state company which holds the original mining le (this is where the new Russian PSC form differs).
Not that hard to find this stuff out if you look beyond the liberal propaganda sites.
the killer qualification:
"in developing countries"Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006
Rank Country Proved reserves (billion barrels)
1. Saudi Arabia 264.3
2. Canada 178.8
3. Iran 132.5
4. Iraq 115.0
5. Kuwait 101.5
6. United Arab Emirates 97.8
7. Venezuela 79.7
8. Russia 60.0
9. Libya 39.1
10. Nigeria 35.9
Of those Top 10, how many oil industries do revenue-sharing contracts?
Canada is certainly not a developing country, so I'm ignoring it.
Kuwait, Iran, and Saudia Arabia have bans on PSCs, and foreign companies can only negotiate fixed fee TSAs.
Russia, Iraq (now), Venezuela, United Arab Emirates, Libya, and Nigeria all utilize PSA's.
So 6 out of 10 have active PSA's for their oil fields.
In the late 90's, both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia actually negotiated on PSA frameworks when they were cash strapped, but pulled out of it before agreements were signed because their economies improved.
So 8 out of the 10 have at least negotiated PSA deals for their own oil fields, and Canadian oil cos and Iran have PSA's in a whole bunch of countries.
It's exactly the point I've been making to you. If you don't have the money to improve infrastructure yourself, you negotiate these deals. When they expire, you negotiate deals that are better for you. It's about costs, not profits.
Also, Iran's production is currently slipping and it spends more money on subsidies and other costs than it makes in oil revenues. They're even working semi-PSA type terms into their TSA contracts.
That answer your question? Do you need me to post the links, or can you do the 15 miuntes of googling I did?
Why haven't we invaded Canada?
We did, they didn't want to be in the military, so they
invaded Canada. Did you not see where they wanted
erect a memorial to them?
"Ask your doctor if Paxil is right for you".
Obviously you have a reading comprehension problem.
Actually, we invaded in 1812 when you were just a kid. Didn't work out too well.
goddamn french canadians.
It wasn't fair. They got to fight downhill.
Iraq Oil Deal Gets Everybody's Attention
By Michael A. Fletcher
Monday, September 24, 2007; Washington Post
The oil deal signed between Hunt Oil and the government in Iraq's Kurdish region earlier this month has raised eyebrows, in no small part because it appears to undercut President Bush's hope that Iraq could draft national legislation to share revenue from the country's vast oil reserves. Making the deal more curious is that it was crafted by one of the administration's staunchest supporters, Ray Hunt.
Hunt, chief executive of the Dallas-based company, has been a major fundraiser and contributor to Bush's presidential campaigns. He also serves on the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, putting him close to the latest information developed by the nation's intelligence agencies.
If Hunt is signing regional oil deals in Iraq, critics ask, what does he know about the prospects for a long-stalled national oil law that others don't?
Since the deal was made public, it has drawn the ire of the Iraqi national government, which has called the agreement illegal.
"Any oil deal has no standing as far as the government of Iraq is concerned," Iraq's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, told reporters earlier this month. "All these contracts have to be approved by the federal authority before they are legal. This [contract] was not presented for approval. It has no standing."
It also has caught the eye of maverick Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and a presidential candidate. He has called for a congressional investigation to probe the Bush administration's role in the deal as well as the implications for a national oil law in Iraq.
"As I have said for five years, this war is about oil. The Bush administration desires private control of Iraqi oil, but we have no right to force Iraq to give up their oil," Kucinich said. "We have no right to set preconditions for Iraq which lead Iraq to giving up control of their oil. The cons ution of Iraq designates that the oil of Iraq is the property of all Iraqi people."
The deal signed by Hunt is a production-sharing contract for petroleum exploration in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq. It is one of several the Kurds have signed with foreign oil companies in recent years and the first since they enacted a regional oil law last month. Kurdish officials have said that the deal would benefit all Iraqis through a revenue-sharing agreement.
Whatever people suspect, Bush says he did not know about the deal before it happened. But, he acknowledged, he has some concerns.
"Our embassy also expressed concern about it," Bush said. "I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil-revenue-sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously I'm -- if it undermines that, I'm concerned."
( dubya ignorant as and asleep at the wheel. I bet venal, evil head knew all about this deal )
Still Around
The Nelson Mandela Foundation wants the world to know that its 89-year-old namesake is very much alive. It seems that a line Bush used at his news conference last week left that fact in doubt -- at least for some people.
"I thought an interesting comment was made -- somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, 'Now, where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas," Bush said last week. "He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families. And people are recovering from this. So there's the psychological recovery that is taking place."
( WTF? Bushisms, like Mandela, aren't dead, either!)
The president's point, of course, was that leaders capable of fostering reconciliation in Iraq, as Mandela has in South Africa, were systematically killed by Hussein. But given Bush's well-earned reputation for struggling with the language, some people were not sure what he meant.
( dubya, up there among Yale and Harvard' Best And Brightest
After Bush's comments circled the globe, the Mandela Foundation felt compelled to set the record straight. "All we can do is reassure people, especially South Africans, that President Mandela is alive," Achmat Dangor, the foundation's chief executive officer, told Reuters on Friday.
Via Canada, the New Face of George Bush
The latest Macleans, the Canadian newsweekly that claims 2.9 million readers, features a striking image that is not too popular at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. It's President Bush's face, but the rest of it is Saddam Hussein, including the mustache, hat and uniform. The image accompanies a story headlined "How George Bush Became the New Saddam," which chronicles how U.S. troops have partnered with some of Hussein's former "henchmen" in an effort to achieve order in parts of Iraq.
The provocative magazine cover made news in Canada, where it fired up bloggers and prompted stories from most major news outlets. "Macleans is a fairly conservative magazine. For the magazine to run that kind of cover surprised people," said Don Newman, senior parliamentary editor for CBC, the Canadian television network.
Both Bush and the war in Iraq are extremely unpopular in Canada, even if most Canadians stop short of equating Bush with Hussein, Newman said.
For Macleans editors, the decision to run the cover image was an easy one. "I don't think anybody quite anticipated the reaction would be this extreme," said Suneel Khanna, the magazine's director of communications. There's no word on how the cover affected sales, Khanna said, lamenting that it takes months to get information about newsstand activity.
Asked to comment on the image, the White House demurred. "That doesn't deserve a reaction," spokesman Tony Fratto said.
Decision Time
National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley appeared before the Council on Foreign Relations last week for a talk focused on Iraq. It mostly featured Hadley fielding questions from members of the audience as well as from moderator Thomas R. Pickering, who was the No. 3 official in President Bill Clinton's State Department.
Near the end, Pickering asked: "If you could do it all over again, would you really go into Iraq?"
Hadley did not miss a beat: "The reasons to go into Iraq really were the same. This was a tyrant who had acquired and used weapons of mass destruction, who had invaded his neighbors, who had oppressed his people, who'd defied the international community. . . . I think the answer is, the president would have done it all over again."
Pickering replied: "Your loyalty is admirable, Stephen. I commend you."
=================
poor dubya, reduced to an object of international ridicule and hate. Foreigners ask themselves how Americans, so rich and powerful and successful, can elect such numb jerkoff.
you're doing a heckuva job, dubya
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...ening?page=0,3One dramatic expression of Iraq's declining power over the oil giants came on Oct. 18, 2011, when ExxonMobil signed a massive exploration deal with the Kurdistan region. The move directly violated Shahristani's policy of unitary authority. In past cases, Shahristani punished oil companies for signing with Kurdistan by blacklisting them from his contracting auctions. But now, with ExxonMobil pumping more than one-tenth of Iraq's crude from the West Qurna Phase 1 field, the government found itself with much less leverage. (ExxonMobil has not acknowledged any contract with Kurdistan and has declined to comment, though multiple officials in the Kurdish and central governments have confirmed the deal.)
Baghdad is now left with two bad options. It could banish ExxonMobil, risk a loss of production, and probably provoke a lawsuit that would stoke the anxiety of other investors. The more likely scenario is that the federal government will seek some sort of compromise that will eventually validate some of the contracting powers Kurdistan has already claimed.
Nevertheless, Kurdistan isn't likely to win the complete autonomy that it desires anytime soon. Baghdad continues to hold two trump cards. First, it controls the pipeline network to the Mediterranean port in Ceyhan, Turkey, through which any large-scale exports must travel. Second, it controls the sale of oil and the collection of export revenues -- and therefore the flow of money from oil sales back to both Kurdistan's budget and its contractors. Hawrami, the natural resources minister, has suggested that he wants to increase Kurdish oil exports from their current level of about 175,000 barrels per day to 1 million barrels per day within five years. For that to become a reality, he needs a deal with Maliki and Shahristani.
Indeed, a truce between Kurdistan and Baghdad could be in the works. When Maliki visited Washington in December, he met privately with Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson. One of Maliki's advisors, speaking anonymously, confirmed to me that Maliki asked Tillerson to "freeze" the Kurdish contracts. The advisor said the government is proposing a quid pro quo: If all parties agree to a new oil law, then Baghdad will endorse a mechanism to recognize ExxonMobil's Kurdish contracts. Maliki is essentially trying to borrow ExxonMobil's new leverage with the Kurds, asking the company to pause its new deal in order to force the Kurds into a grand oil bargain. This could be a pragmatic solution that uses ExxonMobil's influence with both governments to reconcile the two sides. But, assuming it would even work, this plan would transform the oil giant into one of three main parties, alongside the federal and Kurdish governments, that shape the country's oil sector.
lol so australia who joins the coalition in both wars, dont benefit anything from it??? while teh other countries who didnt do in the war are winning contracts? gtfo
private companies have benefitted and so indirectly the USA. true. and US forces are conveniently placed in forward positions relative to Iran, so I suppose we have that going for us too.
Will Australia join the US in a war against Iran?
Whaddya say, m8?
(Third time's a charm?)
dubya, head, neocons invaded Iraq for the oil, not Democracy, Peace, and The American Way, not for WMD nor for Saddam-did-9/11.
We notice how Iraq's "exemplar democracy" has caused democracy to break out all over the M/E: Syria, Bahrain, SA, etc.
what will you say when Obama goes to war with Iran?
"Real Men" neocons, US and UK have wanted to grab Iran's all along.
The MIC + oilcos + UCA make foreign/war policy, not Obama nor any Pres. Spreading democracy and freedom isn't in the picture. It's all about the Ms of Benjamins.
can't really be done without the President's cooperation, tbh.The MIC + oilcos + UCA make foreign/war policy, not Obama nor any Pres.
a recalcitrant Pres will be successfully bullied, intimidated by the MIC + UCA + their attack dogs in the corporate media.
Obama is recalcitrant, in your opinion?
start buyin oil shares fellas... is going to get interesting whether there is a war in iran for its oil, or iran closing the strait due to sanctions...
Obama knows he can't beat the MIC, or the generals. They are out of civilian control, like the CIA/NSA.
The oilcos' broad-band, non-stop Keystone XL lies (national security, energy independence, job creation) are taking hold in the general public. I figure Barry will fold on Keystone, and all the lies will be exposed soon after as the tar sands oil will be exported out of USA, a few 100 jobs, and national security/energy independence not enhanced.
The UCA and wealthy ALWAYS win, sooner or later. There's no stopping them now.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
