How Dare the Iraqis Make Money Off Their Oil

by: David Sirota

Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 13:39


This is Barack Obama's latest campaign ad:

I agree that McCain represents a third Bush term on economic and national security issues, and I agree that it is an outrage that we are spending $10 billion a month on the war. But there's something troublingly imperialistic about the underlying message of this ad.
David Sirota :: How Dare the Iraqis Make Money Off Their Oil
About 15 seconds into the ad, the Obama campaign starts criticizing Iraq for selling oil and making money off those sales - as if that is an outrage, as if, in fact, we should be able to simply take their oil for free.

Don't get me wrong - I think multinational oil companies are gouging consumers and profiteering off a global energy crisis, I think that's awful, and I think we need to much better regulate those companies. But I don't think its bad that the nation of Iraq is making money off a natural resource that it owns, and I don't think that Iraq should have to give away that natural resource to anyone for free.

The ad's implication that Iraq should have to give that resource away to us - the country that invaded Iraq - at a loss is about as brazen an imperialist message as there can be. It's not exactly a message that does anything to counter the notion that the U.S. government initiated the Iraq War for any other reason than petroleum-focused, imperialistic goals - a notion that continues to sow anti-Americanism all over the world.

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
How Dare the Iraqis Make Money Off Their Oil | 31 comments
Seems more poorly worded than a direct policy statement. (4.00 / 6)
I don't think Obama would claim they should give it away for free.  I think he probably means we shouldn't be spending so much of our money there if they're already making oil profits.  And we certainly shouldn't be subsidizing them either (next page).  That's how I read it anyway.  I agree it's a little muddy, though.
Other Ads Make The Point Better (4.00 / 1)
Congressional Democrats have proposed cutting development aid to Iraq, because they have a $89 billion surplus oil revenues they haven't spent.

That makes more sense. Why shouldn't the U.S. redeploy the money here in the U.S. when the Iraqis already have money that they haven't even used just sitting there?

It doesn't look like Obama is calling for Iraq to subsidize the U.S. occupation, rather he's making an argument that we don't need to stay there indefinitely.

He must realize that any notion of Iraq paying money to the U.S. for the occupation is a non-starter, both here and in Iraq.  

[ Parent ]
Disagree with your post (4.00 / 6)
It's not so much that Iraq is making money off of its oil -- it's that they are doing it when the USA is going $10 billion more in debt every month to prop up Iraq.  If Iraq is able to make a profit, they can spend more of that on themselves as we leave Iraq.

John McCain won't insure children
Exactly (4.00 / 2)
My takeaway was that the Iraq profit on oil is yet another sign that we should no longer be there.

Frankly, I think that the Iraqi-oil-surplus story is potentially very powerful, insofar as it connects Iraq to our faltering economy, while also underscoring how McCain is in the pocket of the oil companies.  (This is more of an emotional than logical argument, which seems to be what many people like.)

[ Parent ]
The US Elite Security Company Costs $10B a Month (0.00 / 0)
And if its being hired to guard your oil wells so you can keep conducting business, then you shouldn't get the "Freedom Spreading" discount.

I think its a great ad, and i think the Iraq's aught to pay down some of our debt. Yeah, we attacked, but we've also made a valiant effort to get the country working, make it better really.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
"Yeah, we attacked, but we've also made a valiant effort to get the country working, make it better really. " (0.00 / 0)
you fought in iraq?
[ Parent ]
Iraqi Profits (4.00 / 1)
I don't see it that way.  It appears to me more of a play on the "Iraqi oil will pay for the war".  This ad just shows that it's not, and it was naive to think that it would.
I agree (0.00 / 0)
I also agree with David's problem with the tone of the line and would have much preferred if they had 5 extra seconds to squeeze in "...when we were promised that those sales would pay for the war," but time is tight in 30 second ads.

However, I definitely thought of that promise first, thought of all that money spent to protect those wells and pipelines second, and only got the imperial undertone as a distant third.

[ Parent ]
Whatever. (0.00 / 0)
It's smart politics.
Exactly the attitude (4.00 / 6)
That's exactly the attitude that gets us where we are today - fuck it, we do what we want, especially if it serves our political goals. Pretty sad for a supposed "movement."
[ Parent ]
I wonder if it is a movement. (4.00 / 3)
Or just a method to exchange the group of moderates who are in power with a different group of moderates?

Look at the speakers at the DNC.  Progressive populists cconspicuous by their abscence.  Now I know Warner was good to the netroots early, but is he our future?  

It's an interesting point about the ad.  He's leveraging dislike of Iraquis to work for him.  In effect, McCain is an Iraqi-lover, not an American lover.  Many ways of seeing it.    

[ Parent ]
Where, exactly (4.00 / 1)
does the ad say that the United States should take Iraq's money? Your entire post turns on this sentence:

as if, in fact, we should be able to simply take their oil for free.

But nowhere in the ad does the Obama campaign suggest that the United States should be taking Iraqi oil.

A very strange interpretation to say the least. Especially when it's fairly obvious the ad is pivoting on lines repeatedly used by people like Bush and McCain that the Iraq war "would pay for itself" and that it would lead to low gas prices.

[ Parent ]
The truth is (4.00 / 1)
much of the mainstream opposition to the war has been plagued by this jingoistic, imperialistic nonsense. "It's time for Iraqis to stand up"---how often have we heard this from the ostensible antiwar people. "How dare the parliament go on vacation!"

No talk of what we owe Iraq, and believe me, what we owe them is lot greater than their oil profits.

There's a way to oppose the war and link it to our economy without appealing to this base, dangerous emotion.

[ Parent ]
in a tough, hard-hitting ad (4.00 / 2)
that links McCain to Bush, and which ties our economic situation to the war, I knew that this is what people at openleft would comment on.
I agree with John1963 (0.00 / 0)
It is clearly a play on the fact that Iraqi oil profits were supposed to pay for the war, but instead it is costing us billions of dollars per day while they are making huge oil profits.  Nothing in the ad implies that it is bad for iraq to make profits on oil, it simply implies that we shouldn't have to foot the bill when they are awash in oil revenue...Look again at the framing and the order in which the issue is raised.

[ Parent ]
I disagree, Iraq should get it's money... AFTER America is paid back... (0.00 / 0)
We've spent $500 billion on the war in iraq. Things are beginning to quiet down now, and before long we will be able to leave.

I've always been against this stupid war. The fact remains that the US government has wasted 500 Billion on this war. Iraqi's are the beneficiaries, sure many have been killed because of us, but they are probably better off now that Saddam is out, even though Bush had no real legal basis for this war, it has in fact improved life in the region.

Is the 500 Billion that was spent, just charity? Seriously, I think that money would be better off fixing our roads and schools, but we gave it to another country - so I think they should be required to pay us back plus interest.

Perhaps if we did get the money back from Iraq that was spent there, we could also do more to help in other regions like the genocide in Africa. I don't agree though on taking the money completely, but in taking what we spent back, then I'm all for the Iraqi's keeping the rest.

Check out Whitehouse2008.info for Aggregated Political News

plus interest (0.00 / 0)
LOL!

cold as ice

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
If I blew up your house (4.00 / 1)
then spent alot of my money building you a new house and handed you the bill, would you feel compelled to pay it?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
funny i don't remember iraqis voting for the u.s. to invade their country (4.00 / 1)
this kind of vaguely imperialist commentary has no place in an allegedly progressive discussion.

The fact remains that the US government has wasted 500 Billion on this war. Iraqi's are the beneficiaries, sure many have been killed because of us, but they are probably better off now that Saddam is out, even though Bush had no real legal basis for this war, it has in fact improved life in the region.

You mean by destabilizing the state and the region?  Making the government a puppet of the United States?  Allowing the state to be so weak that its neighbors can heavily influence its politics and in some cases invade its territory?  Causing potentially 1 million casualties?  Inducing PTSD on teenagers?  

War doesn't have beneficiaries, except for political or economic war profiteers like Halliburton and the Bush Administration and the oil companies making exorbitant profits now.

I think that money would be better off fixing our roads and schools, but we gave it to another country - so I think they should be required to pay us back plus interest.

Do you want them to pay it back in the exploding form it was given to them?  Plus interest?

[ Parent ]
Pure awesome (0.00 / 0)
Bravo!
[ Parent ]
I've been concerned about this for a while (4.00 / 2)
Although there are worse offenders than Obama, I've been worried about the colonial style rhetoric that many democrats use as a "safer" way to oppose the war in Iraq. I'm sorry to see it reach Obama's campaign, during the primary he mostly avoided this type of rhetoric when the truly imperialistic comments were coming from Clinton and Biden.
He's not asking for payback (4.00 / 2)
Iraq is not using its surplus to finance its own reconstruction, but storing it in the mattress as long as the Yankee dollars keep flowing.

It doesn't have anything to do with collecting a profit of our own, but pointing out that Iraq is now able to afford the fight.

When you got a sucker on the line (4.00 / 1)
why cut it?

This whole argument seems to be saying that Iraq has to pay for the fucked up policies of the Bush Administration - something they had practically no control over.

Isn't the USA responsible for our mistakes?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
You want to be the sucker? (0.00 / 0)
Please correct me, because I think you want us to leave the country, yet wire them a budget for public works and policing even if they have the money to afford it.

I'm sorry and angry about the war too, but I think the goal is to get them to a place where they sustain themselves.

[ Parent ]
The USA citizens are the suckers (0.00 / 0)
We bought the Neo-Con BS and were not effective is stopping the rush to war.

Now, we're on the line to pay for those poor policy choices.

As far as I know - Iraq was sustaining itself before the USA started blasting it to bits, wasn't it?

How is it a good policy to make the Iraqis pay for the problems the USA and our allies caused?

Don't you feel any sense of responsibility?

All the more incentive to hold the Neo-Con Junta responsible, no?

Why do they get to walk away and leave others holding the bag?



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
great post (0.00 / 0)

Sorry Matt, (0.00 / 0)
But you're dead wrong.  Both of you missed the point completely.
[ Parent ]
No, no, no (0.00 / 0)
I think you're misreading the ad, or reading too much into it.

Clearly the message is that a)we are spending millions of dollars still in a country that is already making billions.

also, it's odd to see a post by you, David, that isn't plugging your book.  Refreshing...but odd  :)

Seriously? (0.00 / 0)
Paul, I know you are smarter than this... No one has problems with Iraq making money off of oil sales.  PEOPLE HAVE HUGE PROBLEMS WITH IRAQ MAKING THAT MUCH OFF OIL SALES WHILE OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE SUBSIDIZING THE WAS AND REBUILDING EFFORT.   That's complete BS and it needs to stop, which is what Obama calls for.
My Apologies... (0.00 / 0)
I meant David, wrote Paul.  Sorry Paul and shame on you David.
[ Parent ]
Why is it BS that the USA pay for damage our invasion caused? (0.00 / 0)
Forcing the Iraqis to foot the bill for the mis-guided and illegal actions of Bush and the Neo-Con Junta smacks of imperialism.

It was our war, we should pay for it.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
How Dare the Iraqis Make Money Off Their Oil | 31 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox