No Surprise at Iraqi Oil Capacity

BBC news published an article today about the potential of Iraqi oil fields, saying quote "Iraq has the world's third largest oil reserves, after Saudi Arabia and Iran". According to the article, Iraq could be producing 12 million barrels a day, surpassing all other countries in oil production except for Saudi Arabia. All this data is produced from 1970s statistics, which the article points out are outdated, and that there may be many more fields beneath Iraq's soil, waiting to be exploited. So far, bids for processing have gone out to Shell, Lukoil, Statoil, and the CNPC. There are still many oil reserves left which have no bids, allegedly the result of corporate insecurity about the current situation in Iraq.

Surprised? You shouldn't be, considering OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom) is the second attempt by the United States to take the country from its former ruler, Saddam Hussein. Hundreds of US soldiers died in ODF (Operation Desert Fox) and hundreds more in OIF. Many thousands have been wounded in both operations. Even more have been sent home with incurable mental trauma. Millions of Iraqi warriors and civilians have either died or suffered similar injuries. And all for what? Wait for it - Oil.

Iraq has tons of it, several billion barrels by their own count, and it is worth lots of money. Undoubtedly the corporations wanted these reserves, and they had the power (US and coalition armies) to take it for themselves. But corporations rarely take such violent action if they can talk their way around it. Negotiation is more effective and lest costly, producing fewer insurgencies and bad press than war.

It is only when negotiations break down that force is necessary. Apparently Saddam was unwilling to come to the plutocrats' terms. Thus the situation in Iraq returns to its old English colonial situation after the first world war, with a strong western power controlling the area through troops and puppet government. Perhaps once the oil in the area is exhausted the people will finally realize true political freedom and self determination (but most certainly not before).

Of all the the things that upset me about this situation, the worst is the story of the soldiers. As a former member of the US armed forces, I can tell you that most men and women who join believe that they are fighting for the good of their country. At the tender age of 17, I certainly did. It was only until my involvement in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan that I began to understand the truth, that our soldiers are exploited for monetary gain. I pity all those soldiers who died, were wounded, or now suffer from incurable mental illness, so that Iraq could produce 12 million barrels a day and fatten the pockets of the Oil industry.

There is something else very disturbing about the story the BBC published today. Look at the first sentence of this blog, at the quote. "Iraq has the world's third largest oil reserves, after Saudi Arabia and Iran." Iran? You mean that same Iran that the US is now hounding, accusing of illegal nuclear research and malicious intent? That same Iran that is the next country under the corporate gun? Now Saudi Arabia is the largest producer of oil in the world, and not coincidentally very close with the US. A larger number of US troops are stationed in the country, and the kingdom was never very afraid of invasion by its neighbors (unlike kuwait).

Iran on the other hand has recently been at odds with America and its allies. According to former US president and international warmonger George W. Bush, "Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger." Recognize that rhetoric? It's the same he used with Iraq before invading.

Bush isn't in office anymore, but many comparisons have been drawn between his military policies and Obama's, which comes as no surprise seeing as they are both puppets of the same corporate masters. We can therefore assume that whatever military action against Iran Bush was planning will be continued in the Obama administration. The man himself says he will be pulling troops out of Afghanistan in 2011. What he didn't say is where he is going to put them.

It seems that unless Mahmoud Ahmadinejad softens his policies towards corporate colonialism, you can expect a US led invasion in the near future to force his country to do just that.

Oboma's Angle on Health Care

Like many Americans, I am instantly suspicious of anything Obama does, especially things that might at first appear to be in our own best interest. Unlike many of those Americans however, I do not believe that Obama is a stooge for a secret World Order organization, or a closet socialist, or even an aspect of the devil himself (start typing, Dan Brown!)

It is instead my belief that Obama is the most recent puppet for the corporate plutocracy that was set up in this country in the early 20th century. Therefore, anything our President does should be for the benefit of the plutocrats, those top 1%'ers who own most of the country. To date, Obama has not let me down (bank bailouts, troop surge, Guantanamo still open, etc). The President's stance on healthcare however, has me deeply troubled. I'm having a hard time calling him out on this one.

According to OpenSecrets.org, a political contributions tracking site, Obama has received large amounts of funds from corporations, particularly law firms. Several banks are listed as well, including the bailed-out Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. The connection between these contributors and Obama's corporate welfare scheme is not difficult to draw. What I couldn't find however were companies that might want the President to push a universal healthcare bill through Congress. So why is he so adamant to do so? For the good of the people? No way. Charity doesn't pay for second term votes.

Searching for a place to begin, I turned to logic. Accepting as true that Obama is a corporate puppet, he therefore only acts upon the will of his masters, the plutocrats. So what big wigs would be so interested in universal healthcare, a seemingly anti - capitalist objective? Probably ones that would stand to gain from the new government investment. First, a government run healthcare plan would funnel money into hospitals and doctor's offices, where insurance money usually goes. The problem is, doctors and hospitals historically don't have enormous lobbies, and probably couldn't afford the president. So who else would benefit? Business might benefit from having government-insured employees, as that would save on sick days and their own insurance costs. So in general big business might be a contributer. Pharmaceutical companies (which have huge lobbies) could stand to gain if free healthcare created an influx of need for drugs (drugs currently unaffordable by those who would qualify for universal care). The insurance companies though also have large lobbies - why are they letting this plan go through? In reality, they may be the cause of its strongest opposition.

Look at how this bill has progressed through Congress, first through the finance committee, then the house, and now the Senate, fighting all the way. Our representatives have already stripped this bill for all it's worth (Ralph Nader says it all, also Wendell Potter). The bill, even if it passes, will not be "universal". What's more, the government side has been removed and replaced with corporate non profits. Still, it is estimated that several million uninsured will receive benefits from the plan. Despite everything, it's still too good to be true. What digs?

Fortunately my man Dennis Kucinich was there to fill us in on the Obama Administration's true intentions. Now I haven't read the 1,000+ page bill I don't think I could even understand it if I did, but I trust that the issues that Dennis points out are real. According to the congressman, this new healthcare bill would funnel more taxpayer money into the pockets of the pharmaceutical and insurance companies. Americans would now be mandated to have healthcare, much like auto insurance for drivers. Pharm companies would be given free reign over medicare prices. Essentially, the corporations get a windfall in tax dollars. I don't even want to think about what services that money is being directed away from (I'll give you a hint: it's not the defense budget!) Congressman Kucinich has co-written a new document, H.R. 676, which promotes a single payer, universal healthcare option, but Obama has yet to endorse it.

The question still remains however, how are insurance and pharm companies influencing the administration? The opensecrets.org info shows that Obama did not receive large sums of money from those industries in contributions. It is possible however that the plutocrats are using lobbyists instead. According to opensecrets.org Lobbyist by industry page, Pharmaceutical and Insurane companies still spend millions of dollars each year on lobbyists, and are the top lobbying industries. It is likely therefore that corporate influence has reached Obama in this manner, perhaps since he began his Washington career as a junior Senator.

One final question still bothers me. Did the corporations convince Obama to rework healthcare for their advantage, or did they try to shape Obama's healthcare reform after the idea had already been introduced? Certainly the '08 election talk of universal healthcare influenced voters to support the democrats; it was one of Obama's flagship issues. Could this bill be a result of the Obama administration simultaneously trying to keep their promise to the people, and their obligation the plutocrats? What do you think?

- the Socialist Intellectual