production sharing agreements (if the company was owned by iraqies this might not be so bad for them, but its not) Never forget they didn’t ask us to invade you can’t turn around and charge them to rebuild.
PSAs in summary:

* A contract between a multinational oil company and a host government, in which the corporation provides capital investment, in exchange for control over an oilfield, and access to a large share of the revenues from it
* Lasting usually 25-40 years - and sometimes even indefinite.
* A change of language, describing the state as “owner” and the foreign company as “contractor”, but in practice mostly equivalent to the old-style concession agreements.
* Precise terms depend on negotiation between state and company.
* Often contains “stablisation clause”, which restricts future governments’ ability to change tax rates or pass any new law which affects the company’s profits.

But they are excellent, well-sourced, and well-researched. And they make clear that the Bushies’ agenda in Iraq was a fantasy about how everything would be better if they could just place all assets in Iraq in the hands of private corporations - including the oil wealth.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.pdf

Also do a little research on the Cheney’s energy task force for timeline issues.
If your definition of growing up is believing propaganda and avoiding difficult truths then I’m glad I avoided the head in the sand like self delusion.
How can one continue to argue we’re there to help the iraqie people and find WMD? The results on the ground speak louder then the retoric. Fact. There are no WMD. Fact. The war is still raging. Fact. We haven’t left them with a democracy. Fact. We have sold much of there oil interests to corporations. Why do YOU contine to believe the propaganda coming out of the WH when the facts don’t match the retoric?

How is it that people can get away with making such retarded statements with absolutely no facts to back them up? How is it that a poster above can simply say we’re there to “loot” the country? I swear, most Democrats under the age of 40 think that if they think something, it must be true.

Don’t believe everything you think. You will eventually grow up and realize how stupid and wrong you are.

In Alaska there are few people but lots of oil, and thus each person gets a juicy check.

In Iraq, while there is a lot of oil, there are also a lot of peopel…20 million plus. Thus there might not be enough to spread around…

“Iraqi economy is almost completely dependent on oil revenue”

The revenue would still exist, but instead of being in the hands of the government, the people can spend it as they see fit. In fact, it can often do more good in the hands of the people than in the hands of kleptocratic government, no?

“and third, given the nature of Iraqi society, people would have very little incentive to work.”

This is true - and that means less people joining the police or the army.

The Alaskan fund does pays out some money to citizens each year, some money to support the government, and also invests the majority in assets that help diversify the Alaskan economy away from total reliance on oil prices. This diversification of revenue streams would be another benefit of the Alaskan approach in Iraq.

I think there are also potential benefits of sharing revenue in stabilizing federal/provincial frictions.

I’m sure there would be problems in the beginning. After all, oil smugglers make much more by stealing oil than they would under a revenue sharing plan. However, more citizens would be upset by the smuggling than is now the case, and this might be enough to help curb the practice. Are any readers aware of other countries where revenue sharing has been implemented after widespread smuggling was already present and successfully eliminated it?

2. Why dont they raise taxes, just as the Dems do. That always helps the economy.