What so you think about these three...?

Question

Headlines from today's news?

House votes to provide $162 billion in war funding (AP)

Bush tells flood-weary Iowa citizens he's listening (AP)

White House threatens veto of foreclosure rescue (AP)

Answer 1

1.  Okay, we might as well get in there and get it done.  We can't very well turn our backs on our troops!

2.  I'm glad he realizes we still have domestic situations that deserve his attention.

3.  Hooray! for this one.  The government has no business involving itself in private contracts, and certainly needs to stay away from bailing out those who sought to live beyond their means and are now seeing how the real world operates.

Answer 2

1.  Excellent.  Either we play in their yard, or they play in ours.

2.  Outstanding.  Neither Obama nor Bush can control the forces of nature.  

3.  As it should be.  It is not the government's job to pay off home mortgages.

Answer 3

House votes to provide $162 billion in war funding

Sounds good.  We have to finish what we started.

Bush tells flood-weary Iowa citizens he's listening

Nothing wrong with that as long as long as he is willing to address the issues which deserve attention.

White House threatens veto of foreclosure rescue

Again, sounds good to me.  People who have signed contracts need to be held responsible for the promises that they have made.

Answer 4

The only good thing about the war funding is the money for college.

I can't help but remember another flood and Bush looking down from on high.

No compassion.

Here's another headline and article...

guardian.co.uk logo

Search: Location

    * News

    * Sport

    * Comment

    * Culture

    * Business

    * Money

    * Life & style

    * Travel

    * Environment

    * Blogs

    * Jobs

    * A-Z

    * News

    * World news

    * Iraq

Oil giants to sign contracts with Iraq

    * Jonathan Steele

    * The Guardian,

    * Friday June 20, 2008

    * Article history

Iraq is preparing to allow four of the biggest western oil companies to renew exploitation of the country's vast reserves for the first time in almost four decades.

Iraq's oil ministry stepped up talks with BP, Exxon Mobil, Shell and Total after the US vice-president, d**k Cheney, visited Iraq in March, where he also pressed the government to revive efforts to pass the hydrocarbon law that nationalist MPs were blocking. The first contracts are expected to be signed this month. Some 90% of Iraq's budget comes from oil revenues.

Iraq's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, told the Guardian this week that the deals did not amount to the privatisation of the country's oil. But the four companies are heirs to the consortium given the concession to control Iraq's oil by King Faisal, the foreign Sunni Arab whom the British imposed on Iraq's majority Shia population after occupying the country during the first world war. They lost their right to explore new fields in 1961 after the monarchy was overthrown, and nationalisation followed under the Ba'ath party.

There was no competitive bidding for the concessions, which are to be awarded to the four giants plus Chevron and some smaller companies. After the US-led invasion in 2003 the companies supplied advisers and trainers to the oil ministry for free in the hope of getting a foot in the door. The Russian company Lukoil did the same but lost the contract for Iraq's largest undeveloped field to Total and Chevron. Chinese and Indian firms also lost out.

Laws on how to develop Iraq's oil and share the profits between its regions stalled in parliament last autumn.

To calm nationalist fears, the contracts are limited to "technical support" for two years. The companies will sell expertise and equipment rather than providing capital and management control. The aim is to increase production by 100,000 barrels a day in each of the four fields.

But the deals, known as service contracts, are unusual, said Greg Mutitt, co-director of Platform, an oil industry research group. "Normally such service contracts are carried out by specialist companies ... The majors are not normally interested in such deals, preferring to invest in projects that give them a stake in ownership of extracted oil and the potential for large profits. The explanation is that they see them as a stepping stone..."

He said the companies' lawyers had been insisting "on extension rights under which each company would get first preference on any future contract for the field on which it has worked".