Iraq supposedly has the largest remaining oil reserve in the world. Which makes the situation all the funnier. If they could just chill out and get along, they'd probably be as well off as the UAE.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Riiiggggghhhhhhtttttt (Iraqi oil industry to allow foreign leases?)
Who said tourism isn't doing well in Iraq... there is 200,000+ foreigners in the country on long term visits paid for by their generous governments.
Yep. British soldiers, American soldiers, French soldiers, German soldiers :PFred[OZ75] wrote:
Who said tourism isn't doing well in Iraq... there is 200,000+ foreigners in the country on long term visits paid for by their generous governments.
Can I ask though...how exactly is this going to be in anyway good for Iraqis...surely it will just further develop reasons to hate one side over the other. I can see the headlines now, "60 killed in bombing for oil" ...
Was so obviously going to happen. War is good business for big business, always has been, always will be.
Profits can be measured in human lives.
Profits can be measured in human lives.
Hey Cameron. I was actually looking at your sources. The fist two links you provide are "resources" links provided by the Wikipedia article. THat made me curious enough to check the other wiki sources.
1. A New York Times Opinion Editorial. Someone is using an OpEd as a source? Sourced 4 times.
2. Al Jazera. Not the most unbiased source of information, it must be said. Sourced 9 times.
3. LA Times Opinion Editorial. Again with the OpEd. Sourced once.
4. I am unfamiliar with the Independant. I dont know much about them, but the other arcticles I saw seemed pretty one-sided. Sourced once.
5. The BBC Nice. Repuable. And only used in the article to say that the bill was approved; no other information from this source. Sourced once.
6. The Washington Post. Again, good, repudable. Used only to show that the law was a benchmark, and that Kurds were having issues with the law. Sourced 2 times.
7. Time magazine Drifting away from repudable, and into opinion magazines. Newsweek, Time, and others have more opinion than news in them; that is how and why they sell. Sourced once.
8. A book. No witty comment. I can't see the book. But only used (as a second source) to reference the year Iraqi oil was nationalized. Sourced once.
9. Article on Law.com sounds good, but the source is an article desribing the two sides of a debate, and the author is using as a source to show not that there IS a debate, but to present a single side. Its only use is also a double referrence. Souced once.
10. A book. Again, no opinion about the book. But it is only sourced to find the amount of oil produced by Saudi Arabia. Sourced once.
11. The link provided is bad. It is supposed to be an article from The Real News, in Brazil the article states the jounalist by name, but it seems that what the journalist said was an opinion "Journalist Pepe Escobar points to the destiny of the Iraq oil law as the crucial point determining the will of the American administrations to withdraw from the Iraq war." This one can be debated, but that just sounds like an opinion to me. Sourced once.
12. The link provided was bad. Oddly enough, the link was for an LA Times article. The link for the first LA Times article was valid. a google search can not get me to the LA TImes article, but only points back to Wiki. Source used twice.
This article seems to be an opinion piece gathered and made to look like a nice research article. It has bad references, doubled sources, and most of its positioning is taken from OpEds, or from a "news" agency that seems to print news and propaganda with equal aplomb. Articles such as these are the bad part about Wikipedia. Aybody can put anything on there, really.
1. A New York Times Opinion Editorial. Someone is using an OpEd as a source? Sourced 4 times.
2. Al Jazera. Not the most unbiased source of information, it must be said. Sourced 9 times.
3. LA Times Opinion Editorial. Again with the OpEd. Sourced once.
4. I am unfamiliar with the Independant. I dont know much about them, but the other arcticles I saw seemed pretty one-sided. Sourced once.
5. The BBC Nice. Repuable. And only used in the article to say that the bill was approved; no other information from this source. Sourced once.
6. The Washington Post. Again, good, repudable. Used only to show that the law was a benchmark, and that Kurds were having issues with the law. Sourced 2 times.
7. Time magazine Drifting away from repudable, and into opinion magazines. Newsweek, Time, and others have more opinion than news in them; that is how and why they sell. Sourced once.
8. A book. No witty comment. I can't see the book. But only used (as a second source) to reference the year Iraqi oil was nationalized. Sourced once.
9. Article on Law.com sounds good, but the source is an article desribing the two sides of a debate, and the author is using as a source to show not that there IS a debate, but to present a single side. Its only use is also a double referrence. Souced once.
10. A book. Again, no opinion about the book. But it is only sourced to find the amount of oil produced by Saudi Arabia. Sourced once.
11. The link provided is bad. It is supposed to be an article from The Real News, in Brazil the article states the jounalist by name, but it seems that what the journalist said was an opinion "Journalist Pepe Escobar points to the destiny of the Iraq oil law as the crucial point determining the will of the American administrations to withdraw from the Iraq war." This one can be debated, but that just sounds like an opinion to me. Sourced once.
12. The link provided was bad. Oddly enough, the link was for an LA Times article. The link for the first LA Times article was valid. a google search can not get me to the LA TImes article, but only points back to Wiki. Source used twice.
This article seems to be an opinion piece gathered and made to look like a nice research article. It has bad references, doubled sources, and most of its positioning is taken from OpEds, or from a "news" agency that seems to print news and propaganda with equal aplomb. Articles such as these are the bad part about Wikipedia. Aybody can put anything on there, really.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Riiiggggghhhhhhtttttt (Iraqi oil industry to allow foreign leases?)