GAZZE is a small town in which about 1.5 million Arabs are ransomed by Israel..There is an Israeli wall around the city, there is no electricity, there is no water, there is not enough food, medical supplies are non existent.

People in Gazze have torn this wall of shame down and gained temporary access to Egypt few days ago.

US stepped in and forced Egyptian authorities to close this entry into Egypt. Egyptian Army and police have done exactly as ordered and are now stopping and severely beating up their own brethen - who is only after their most basic needs.

Perhaps some of you think, people of Gazze deserve this....

Anyone?

Ofcourse noone deserves a behaviour to be in like a zoo...

I dont read much about the "what is going on in Gazze", only what i see on the news of CNN Turk and NTV and the web portal of NTV...

On the other hand, i have some points that i cannot ever accept in arabic culture, which is the very modified version of Islam and which makes other people think bad and unrelated thoughts about Islam...

But ofcourse we have to go very far deep into this topic to find out who deserves what, however for sure we cannot decide this so easily, and even if we do, it wont go far more than just making ourselves busy....


But indeed, this is very interesting and serious 'Topic' but i dont see anything close about this topic with Turkia.

You could post this under News and Annoucements part i guess...

i wish this topic have the largest amount of replies...

we r living kind of shame life , that we r even cant say that the people in Gazzah r suffering ...

here we r in need just for a word from u TC's friends..
We r not brave to do ...at least we should be brave to say that


WE R WITH U GAZZAH'S PEOPLE*



ANYONE?

Sui, we shall use that forum for your wedding announcements. Until then, mind your own bussiness...

SUI IS GETTING MARRIED!!!!
Congratulations SG

Start counting Faruk.....This is what Sui has to say on this issue and Sui demands a reply )))))))))))))

You are definitely funnier...Pathetic !

Sui,

I dont think you can understand....
I shall not bother with you anymore...

Be honest partner...do not lose your credibility..
Sui mumbled more than you claim....

He should have waited to be enlightened, before he started mumbling...

Ok apologizes for "mumbling"...

Waiting to be enlightened... patiently...

Sui...here is a homework for you...

Read up on the subject and present this group with an enlightening report on the subject.

That should stop you from starting unnecesarry discusssions, on subjects you know very little about...

Send me an invitation to your wedding !

sui,all cares here but u should ask who can be brave to talk..
A war here !!!,, maybe the issue is nothing to do with turkey but at least she did something for gazzah's ppls at the time we didn't
WElldone

As far as I heard and read in Dutch newspapers, the Egyptian government as well as the people were not bothered by the people buying food. As long as THEY are not bothered, then what has US got to do with it, making people stop to provide in their basic needs?

It's a border breach, an open border in Egypt is concerning. I agree something has to be done for the suffering, however Egypt is reluctant to have an open border with a territory rule by Islamic militants, rightfully so..The US never forced the Egyptian authorities....

However, Egypt is after all an Arab country, the Palestinians' elder sister, which connects them to the Arab world historically. Egypt has good relations with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and Egypt had control over Gaza until 40 years ago. In Gaza, Arabic is spoken with an Egyptian accent. Why then, should the burden fall on the shoulders of Israel, the Palestinians' enemy, of all countries?

Egypt should have no doubt that the terror regime in Gaza will impact the entire Sinai Peninsula, and ultimately Cairo as well. The Egyptians must understand that there are no more excuses and that now they are obliged to act: Prevent arms from flowing into Gaza, while entering the Strip and getting increasingly involved.

I believe some responsibility for restoring order lies with Egypt. These people need some form of help..

Because Israel caused it ?
Because İsrael has NO right to be in Gazzah or in all Palestin ?
Maybe that is reason enough why the burden should lay on İsrael..

We help them alright because they are our neighbours,our brothers and sisters..
But no,to carry the responsibility..NO

Because that is exactly what İsrael and US want us to do..

For those who forget,or who dont know,Gazzah is PART of Palestin,and will always be
İf we accept what they want us to do,by time İsrael will seperat it from Palestin,and as obvious that is what its tring to do already
Gazzah is pain in İsrael's.. body,and its trying to get rid of it,so it wont have any headache of people who wants their lands back or fight for it.
İt planted hate already between them,between brothers 'and Palestainians were naive enough and took the bait' but that wasnt enough,and Gazzah still pain ,so now trying to kill them,to kick them out,and wait for anyone to help them !

So NO...
We will help,but they STİLL have their homes back in Gazzah,in Palestine
GAZZAH is part of Palestine,and Palestine will always exist..and wont die that easy,and we wont be part of that game too.
So...better live with that !

''Wednesday, the border city of Rafah and its neighbouring city of Arish were inundated with Palestinians who managed to pass the border. Hours later, a spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry berated Egypt for allowing the Palestinians to exit Gaza. Israel said it would deny Gaza emergency fuel supplies it had earlier promised. But according to Egyptian security sources onsite, when the protesters broke through at dawn Wednesday there was no way that Egyptian security would repel them with armed force. "It was simply out of the question," commented one security source.''

''Wednesday, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak told reporters that at dawn he ordered Egyptian security forces stationed in Rafah to allow Palestinian crowds to enter Egyptian territory and "allow them to buy their basic needs and go back to Gaza -- as long as they are not carrying arms or anything illegal". Eyewitnesses in Rafah and Arish tell the Weekly that many Palestinians are doing exactly that. "Some keep coming and going back to carry more commodities. They carry so much. It looks horrible," commented one Arish resident. According to some accounts, hundreds if not thousands of Palestinians are renting flats -- sometimes shared -- to stay in Arish for an indefinite period. ''

''Egyptian official sources reveal that there has been US and Israeli protests over the breach of the Rafah crossing. However, they say that Cairo is not in a position to force any Palestinian to return. Egypt, they acknowledge, already has a bad image with the citizens of Gaza and their political leadership''

AlAhram Weekly

Egypt occupied Gaza from 1948 to 1967. However when Israel and Egypt signed their peace treaty in 1979, in which Egypt got back much of their land lost in the 1967 war, they didn’t push the issue to get Gaza back. Why not? Because Gaza was occupied by Palestinians, which Egypt didn’t want responsibility for.

The Arab countries have not wanted to take responsibility for the Palestinians. Why are most Palestinians still living in refuge camps, not only in “occupied” territory, but Arab countries as well? Are the Palestinians being used as pawns in the battle to exercise “right of return” which would eliminate Israel as we now know it?

Why did the Palestinians only resort to terror tactics once Israel “occupied” the territories? Why didn’t they use these tactics they are using today against Jordan in the West Bank and Egypt in Gaza? Why didn’t they attack the civilian populations of the same countries as the do in Israel?

What historical president is there for a country to return land won in a war? Remember how many wars there were between Israel and multiple Arab countries. The 1967 war was started by Israel, but only because they had information that an attack was pending by Jordan, Egypt and Syria. If Israeli land was now occupied by any of those countries would there be similar demands for them to return captured territory?

Are the Palestinians pawns? Sadly, yes. Should they act as a state if they want to be treated as such? Yes. Are they (Hammas) doing so? No. Is there some blame for Israel for the current situation? Yes. Are they the only ones with such responsibility? No.

Gazze is one of humanity shame center of this century..how can be this much blind and deaf all world this untold treagedy???

if i only knew much things about gazze.
what was going on...
what i am?
what will be going on?

I was extremely happy the day I read the news about the border wall torn down in rafah. This is not the only obstacle to peace in the middle east but it is certainly its main pillar. I hate what Israel has done to these people. And I am ashamed of the Arabs for letting it happen. And I am disgusted that my government pays for it...

Arjun-Vishad The Dejection of Arjuna
Krishna! as I behold, come here to shed Their common blood, yon concourse of our kin, My members fail, my tongue dries in my mouth, A shudder thrills my body, and my hair Bristles with horror; from my weak hand slips Gandiv, the goodly bow; a fever burns My skin to parching; hardly may I stand; The life within me seems to swim and faint; Nothing do I foresee save woe and wail! It is not good, O Keshav! nought of good Can spring from mutual slaughter! Lo, I hate Triumph and domination, wealth and ease, Thus sadly won! Aho! what victory Can bring delight, Govinda! what rich spoils Could profit; what rule recompense; what span Of life itself seem sweet, bought with such blood? Seeing that these stand here, ready to die, For whose sake life was fair, and pleasure pleased, And power grew precious: - grandsires, sires, and sons. Brothers, and fathers-in-law, and sons-in-law, Elders and friends! Shall I deal death on these Even though they seek to slay us? Not one blow, O Madhusudan! will I strike to gain The rule of all Three Worlds; then, how much less To seize an earthly kingdom! Killing these Must breed but anguish, Krishna! If they be Guilty, we shall grow guilty by their deaths; Their sins will light on us, if we shall slay Those sons of Dhritirashtra, and our kin; What peace could come of that, O Madhava? For if indeed, blinded by lust and wrath, These cannot see, or will not see, the sin Of kingly lines o'erthrown and kinsmen slain, How should not we, who see, shun such a crime We who perceive the guilt and feel the shame Oh, thou Delight of Men, Janardana? By overthrow of houses perisheth Their sweet continuous household piety, And - rites neglected, piety extinct Enters impiety upon that home; Its women grow unwomaned, whence there spring Mad passions, and the mingling-up of castes, Sending a Hell-ward road that family, And whoso wrought its doom by wicked wrath. Nay, and the souls of honored ancestors Fall from their place of peace, being bereft Of funeral-cakes and the wan death-water.1

So teach our holy hymns. Thus, if we slay Kinsfolk and friends for love of earthly power, Ahovat! what an evil fault it were! Better I deem it, if my kinsmen strike, To face them weaponless, and bare my breast To shaft and spear, than answer blow with blow.

does that somehow relate to Gaza and the palestinians?

The situation in Palestine/Gaza/Israel is like a gangrenous wound. Quietly, insidiously it infects the whole world, rotting and destroying as it continues to fester and spread it's malodorous atmosphere unchecked.

Free Gaza Website

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/01/30/free_gaza

İ dont see what are you arguing about here actually

İsrael turing Palastinians life into hell in Gazah,people escape to our lands to get their life necessaries.

And you are BLAMİNG US for WHAT ?!

Maybe Egypt should have not occupied Gaza from 1948 to 1967 after it attacked Israel in 1948? There would have been a Palestinian state 60 years old now had they hadn’t, and had Jordan not attacked Israel and occupied the west bank for the same time period. It all stems back to putting these people in refugee camps years ago, and by who.

And wouldn’t it be correct to draw the inference that up till now Egypt, like Israel, has also maintained a closed border with Gaza? Yet I seem only to have read accounts in the media of the cruel and brutal actions of the Israelis in blocking passage to and from Gaza, but not a single judgemental word till now about the Egyptians doing exactly the same (and why can’t they supply Gaza with energy, instead of the hated Zionist entity?

Did I mention, nice to see you back Canli.

Thx tea
Sry,we are having a bad connections here,for the cut in the under sea cables

Yes portokal ?

How bout we talk about whatever we want to talk about?

*As alameda lurks about in her corner, frantically searching for google links to tell her how to respond, GG lies in wait...ready to pounce*

Gaza
http://electronicintifada.net:80/v2/article6374.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7R_YZiRlPs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUFLpP9Prxo

i wanna answer the question.
britan had a right to grant the land to anyone it wished to or keep to itself.
if you occuppy the land, its yours and you do what you like.
i dont tend to think the land was given to jews because of holocaust.
btw, there was no nation called palestinians before, nor there was such country. it were jews who used to call their land palestine as their home to go back one day.

and actually almost no one lived in the deserted area of palestine, so to claim the land was someones.

as far as im concerned if not jews then arab would fight someone else or with each other. middle eastern states never were in peace with each other.

CHRISTIAN AID CONDEMNS ISRAEL'S BLOCKADE OF GAZA

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/218275/120110166252.htm

DEATH IN GAZA - documentarians James Miller and Saira Shah planned to produce an in-depth look at the culture of martyrdom and hate pervading the Middle East. In 2003, they chronicled the lives of three Palestinian adolescents growing up in war-torn Gaza.
Miller and Shah also wanted to show the Israeli side of the dispute, but during filming, Miller fell victim to the conflict when Isreali forces killed him. A tragic story.

Death in Gaza exposes the true horror that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has caused to both the Palestinians and the Israelis. The story by James Miller and Saira Shah show us how everyday Palestinians live. They never give any biased opinions on whether the Israelis are to blame for the current state the Palestinians live in, yet they show in a true journalistic fashion Palestinian life and culture in its fullest form. The movie is a documentation of children in Palestine and the struggles and dangers they face on an every day basis. It shows how they are pushed by cultural ideologies to believe that being a martyr is somehow more glorious than living a peaceful life. In the movie the children are the focal point of the movie. From an American standpoint it is a real eye-opener at the way they live, what they are taught at school, how they create bombs out of cans, and the way they are recruited by radical groups in Palestine to perform acts of terror against the Israelis. We are shown the other side to a conflict we only usually receive an Israeli voice for. The fact that director James Miller died creating this movie only adds to this dramatic documentary that made me think about what can we do to make this world a better place?

Baghdad Burning II
More Girl Blog From Iraq Riverbend from Feminist Press
www.feministpress.org

Mass graves discovered near Baghdad

you would think that north korea doesnt have oil?
but not only iraq has oil.
iraq was one of the most military powerful state in middle east. why did they actually choose iraq but not saudi that has much more oil?

as for north korea. USA will never touch that country because Russia. north korea is protected by russia so are many other neighbours.

your political points are weak.

heres your article. i have read it. i still cant get your points.

By Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb
Sunday, 7 January 2007

Future of Iraq: The spoils of war

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.

Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.

Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.

Proposing the parliamentary motion for war in 2003, Tony Blair denied the "false claim" that "we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues. He said the money should be put into a trust fund, run by the UN, for the Iraqis, but the idea came to nothing. The same year Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, said: "It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil."

Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs. After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals.

Greg Muttitt, a researcher for Platform, a human rights and environmental group which monitors the oil industry, said Iraq was being asked to pay an enormous price over the next 30 years for its present instability. "They would lose out massively," he said, "because they don't have the capacity at the moment to strike a good deal."

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Salih, who chairs the country's oil committee, is expected to unveil the legislation as early as today. "It is a redrawing of the whole Iraqi oil industry [to] a modern standard," said Khaled Salih, spokesman for the Kurdish Regional Government, a party to the negotiations. The Iraqi government hopes to have the law on the books by March.

Several major oil companies are said to have sent teams into the country in recent months to lobby for deals ahead of the law, though the big names are considered unlikely to invest until the violence in Iraq abates.

James Paul, executive director at the Global Policy Forum, the international government watchdog, said: "It is not an exaggeration to say that the overwhelming majority of the population would be opposed to this. To do it anyway, with minimal discussion within the [Iraqi] parliament is really just pouring more oil on the fire."

Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman and a former chief economist at Shell, said it was crucial that any deal would guarantee funds for rebuilding Iraq. "It is absolutely vital that the revenue from the oil industry goes into Iraqi development and is seen to do so," he said. "Although it does make sense to collaborate with foreign investors, it is very important the terms are seen to be fair."

No further question and no more reading for you femme..
next time, I will try to find youtube links for you..

heres you second article.


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.

Now, unnoticed by most amid the furore over civil war in Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the new oil law has quietly been going through several drafts, and is now on the point of being presented to the cabinet and then the parliament in Baghdad. Its provisions are a radical departure from the norm for developing countries: under a system known as "production-sharing agreements", or PSAs, oil majors such as BP and Shell in Britain, and Exxon and Chevron in the US, would be able to sign deals of up to 30 years to extract Iraq's oil.

PSAs allow a country to retain legal ownership of its oil, but gives a share of profits to the international companies that invest in infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries. Their introduction would be a first for a major Middle Eastern oil producer. Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's number one and two oil exporters, both tightly control their industries through state-owned companies with no appreciable foreign collaboration, as do most members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Opec.

Critics fear that given Iraq's weak bargaining position, it could get locked in now to deals on bad terms for decades to come. "Iraq would end up with the worst possible outcome," said Greg Muttitt of Platform, a human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry. He said the new legislation was drafted with the assistance of BearingPoint, an American consultancy firm hired by the US government, which had a representative working in the American embassy in Baghdad for several months.

"Three outside groups have had far more opportunity to scrutinise this legislation than most Iraqis," said Mr Muttitt. "The draft went to the US government and major oil companies in July, and to the International Monetary Fund in September. Last month I met a group of 20 Iraqi MPs in Jordan, and I asked them how many had seen the legislation. Only one had."

Britain and the US have always hotly denied that the war was fought for oil. On 18 March 2003, with the invasion imminent, Tony Blair proposed the House of Commons motion to back the war. "The oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people administered through the UN," he said.

"The United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm... the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

That suggestion came to nothing. In May 2003, just after President Bush declared major combat operations at an end, under a banner boasting "Mission Accomplished", Britain co-sponsored a resolution in the Security Council which gave the US and UK control over Iraq's oil revenues. Far from "all oil revenues" being used for the Iraqi people, Resolution 1483 continued to make deductions from Iraq's oil earnings to pay compensation for the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

That exception aside, however, the often-stated aim of the US and Britain was that Iraq's oil money would be used to pay for reconstruction. In July 2003, for example, Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, insisted: "We have not taken one drop of Iraqi oil for US purposes, or for coalition purposes. Quite the contrary... It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil."

Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary at the time of the war and now head of the World Bank, told Congress: "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

But this optimism has proved unjustified. Since the invasion, Iraqi oil production has dropped off dramatically. The country is now producing about two million barrels per day. That is down from a pre-war peak of 3.5 million barrels. Not only is Iraq's whole oil infrastructure creaking under the effects of years of sanctions, insurgents have constantly attacked pipelines, so that the only steady flow of exports is through the Shia-dominated south of the country.

Worsening sectarian violence and gangsterism have driven most of the educated élite out of the country for safety, depriving the oil industry of the Iraqi experts and administrators it desperately needs.

And even the present stunted operation is rife with corruption and smuggling. The Oil Ministry's inspector-general recently reported that a tanker driver who paid $500 in bribes to police patrols to take oil over the western or northern border would still make a profit on the shipment of $8,400.

"In the present state, it would be crazy to pump in more money, just to be stolen," said Greg Muttitt. "It's another reason not to bring in $20bn of foreign money now."

Before the war, Mr Bush endorsed claims that Iraq's oil would pay for reconstruction. But the shortage of revenues afterwards has silenced him on this point. More recently he has argued that oil should be used as a means to unify the country, "so the people have faith in central government", as he put it last summer.

But in a country more dependent than almost any other on oil - it accounts for 70 per cent of the economy - control of the assets has proved a recipe for endless wrangling. Most of the oil reserves are in areas controlled by the Kurds and Shias, heightening the fears of the Sunnis that their loss of power with the fall of Saddam is about to be compounded by economic deprivation.

The Kurds in particular have been eager to press ahead, and even signed some small PSA deals on their own last year, setting off a struggle with Baghdad. These issues now appear to have been resolved, however: a revenue-sharing agreement based on population was reached some months ago, and sources have told the IoS that regional oil companies will be set up to handle the PSA deals envisaged by the new law.

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.

While the costs are being recovered, companies will be able to recoup 60 to 70 per cent of revenue; 40 per cent is more usual. David Horgan, managing director of Petrel Resources, an Aim-listed oil company focused on Iraq, said: "They are reasonable rates of return, and take account of the bad security situation in Iraq. The government needs people, technology and capital to develop its oil reserves. It has got to come up with terms which are good enough to attract companies. The major companies tend to be conservative."

Dr Zainy, an Iraqi who has recently visited the country, said: "It's very dangerous ... although the security situation is far better in the north." Even taking that into account, however, he believed that "for a company to take 20 per cent of the profits in a production sharing agreement once all the costs have been recouped is large".

He pointed to the example of Total, which agreed terms with Saddam Hussein before the second Iraq war to develop a huge field. Although the contract was never signed, the French company would only have kept 10 per cent of the profits once the company had recovered its costs.

And while the company was recovering its costs, it is understood it agreed to take only 40 per cent of the profits, the Iraqi government receiving the rest.

Production sharing agreements of more than 30 years are unusual, and more commonly used for challenging regions like the Amazon where it can take up to a decade to start production. Iraq, in contrast, is one of the cheapest and easiest places in the world to drill for and produce oil. Many fields have already been discovered, and are waiting to be developed.

Analysts estimate that despite the size of Iraq's reserves - the third largest in the world - only 2,300 wells have been drilled in total, fewer than in the North Sea.

Confirmation of the generous terms - widely feared by international non government organisations and Iraqis alike - have prompted some to draw parallels with the production-sharing agreements Russia signed in the 1990s, when it was bankrupt and in chaos.

At the time Shell was able to sign very favourable terms to develop oil and gas reserves off the coast of Sakhalin island in the far east of Russia. But at the end of last year, after months of thinly veiled threats from the environment regulator, the Anglo-Dutch company was forced to give Russian state-owned gas giant Gazprom a share in the project.

Although most other oil experts endorsed the view that PSAs would be needed to kick-start exports from Iraq, Mr Muttitt disagreed. "The most commonly mentioned target has been for Iraq to increase production to 6 million barrels a day by 2015 or so," he said. "Iraq has estimated that it would need $20bn to $25bn of investment over the next five or six years, roughly $4bn to $5bn a year. But even last year, according to reports, the Oil Ministry had between $3bn and $4bn it couldn't invest. The shortfall is around $1bn a year, and that could easily be made up if the security situation improved.

"PSAs have a cost in sovereignty and future revenues. It is not true at all that this is the only way to do it." Technical services agreements, of the type common in countries which have a state-run oil corporation, would be all that was necessary.

James Paul of Global Policy Forum, another advocacy group, said: "The US and the UK have been pressing hard on this. It's pretty clear that this is one of their main goals in Iraq." The Iraqi authorities, he said, were "a government under occupation, and it is highly influenced by that. The US has a lot of leverage... Iraq is in no condition right now to go ahead and do this."

Mr Paul added: "It is relatively easy to get the oil in Iraq. It is nowhere near as complicated as the North Sea. There are super giant fields that are completely mapped, [and] there is absolutely no exploration cost and no risk. So the argument that these agreements are needed to hedge risk is specious."

One point on which all agree, however, is that only small, maverick oil companies are likely to risk any activity in Iraq in the foreseeable future. "Production over the next year in Iraq is probably going to fall rather than go up," said Kevin Norrish, an oil analyst from Barclays. "The whole thing is held together by a shoestring; it's desperate."

An oil industry executive agreed, saying: "All the majors will be in Iraq, but they won't start work for years. Even Lukoil [of Russia], the Chinese and Total [of France] are not in a rush to endanger themselves. It's now very hard for US and allied companies because of the disastrous war."

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.

America protects its fuel supplies - and contracts

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.

Halliburton, the firm that Dick Cheney used to run, was among US-based multinationals that won most of the reconstruction deals - one of its workers is pictured, tackling an oil fire. British firms won some contracts, mainly in security. But constant violence has crippled rebuilding operations. Bechtel, another US giant, has pulled out, saying it could not make a profit on work in Iraq.

In just 40 pages, Iraq is locked into sharing its oil with foreign investors for the next 30 years

A 40-page document leaked to the 'IoS' sets out the legal framework for the Iraqi government to sign production- sharing agreement contracts with foreign companies to develop its vast oil reserves.

The paper lays the groundwork for profit-sharing partnerships between the Iraqi government and international oil companies. It also lays out the basis for co-operation between Iraq's federal government and its regional authorities to develop oil fields.

The document adds that oil companies will enjoy contracts to extract Iraqi oil for up to 30 years, and stresses that Iraq needs foreign investment for the "quick and substantial funding of reconstruction and modernisation projects".

It concludes that the proposed hydrocarbon law is of "great importance to the whole nation as well as to all investors in the sector" and that the proceeds from foreign investment in Iraq's oilfields would, in the long term, decrease dependence on oil and gas revenues.

The role of oil in Iraq's fortunes

Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves - 10 per cent of the world total. There are 71 discovered oilfields, of which only 24 have been developed. Oil accounts for 70 per cent of Iraq's GDP and 95 per cent of government revenue. Iraq's oil would be recovered under a production sharing agreement (PSA) with the private sector. These are used in only 12 per cent of world oil reserves and apply in none of the other major Middle Eastern oil-producing countries. In some countries such as Russia, where they were signed at a time of political upheaval, politicians are now regretting them.

The $50bn bonanza for US companies piecing a broken Iraq together

The task of rebuilding a shattered Iraq has gone mainly to US companies.

As well as contractors to restore the infrastructure, such as its water, electricity and gas networks, a huge number of companies have found lucrative work supporting the ongoing coalition military presence in the country. Other companies have won contracts to restore Iraq's media; its schools and hospitals; its financial services industry; and, of course, its oil industry.

In May 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), part of the US Department of Defence, created the Project Management Office in Baghdad to oversee Iraq's reconstruction.

In June 2004 the CPA was dissolved and the Iraqi interim government took power. But the US maintained its grip on allocating contracts to private companies. The management of reconstruction projects was transferred to the Iraq Reconstruction and Management Office, a division of the US Department of State, and the Project and Contracting Office, in the Department of Defence.

The largest beneficiary of reconstruction work in Iraq has been KBR (Kellogg, Brown & Root), a division of US giant Halliburton, which to date has secured contracts in Iraq worth $13bn (£7bn), including an uncontested $7bn contract to rebuild Iraq's oil infrastructure. Other companies benefiting from Iraq contracts include Bechtel, the giant US conglomerate, BearingPoint, the consultant group that advised on the drawing up of Iraq's new oil legislation, and General Electric. According to the US-based Centre for Public Integrity, 150-plus US companies have won contracts in Iraq worth over $50bn.

30,000 Number of Kellogg, Brown and Root employees in Iraq.

36 The number of interrogators employed by Caci, a US company, that have worked in the Abu Ghraib prison since August 2003.

$12.1bn UN's estimate of the cost of rebuilding Iraq's electricity network.

$2 trillion Estimated cost of the Iraq war to the US, according to the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.

WHAT THEY SAID

"Oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people"

Tony Blair; Moving motion for war with Iraq, 18 March 2003

"Oil belongs to the Iraqi people; the government has... to be good stewards of that valuable asset "

George Bush; Press conference, 14 June 2006

"The oil of the Iraqi people... is their wealth. We did not [invade Iraq] for oil "

Colin Powell; Press briefing, 10 July 2003

"Oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50bn and $100bn in two or three years... [Iraq] can finance its reconstruction"

Paul Wolfowitz; Deputy Defense Secretary, March 2003

"By 2010 we will need [a further] 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies"

Dick Cheney; US Vice-President, 1999

and they dont make any sense to you?

semitic craps are on the play which titled dog eat dog. Who cares.

Thread locked because of political discussion and personal attacks.